Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), sends her apologies due to a family issue. She is very much in our thoughts today.
Thanks to the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the spending review, health capital budgets will increase to £14.6 billion by the end of the spending review period. That will deliver the largest-ever health capital budget in NHS history. Across this settlement, more than £5 billion will be invested to address the most critical building repairs, reducing the most serious and critical infrastructure risks and rebuilding the broken NHS left by the Conservatives.
Helen Maguire
While I welcome the recent announcement of £12 million of extra funding for Epsom and St Helier university hospitals NHS trust, it is quite frankly a drop in the ocean in comparison with the scale of need, because the current backlog at the trust costs £150 million. Patients and staff deserve safe and modern facilities, not patchwork repairs. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to meet with me and visit Epsom and St Helier hospitals to see at first hand the scale of the challenge and how we can accelerate progress.
Wes Streeting
I absolutely appreciate the challenges that the hon. Member describes, having met with the trust myself. The Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and I have both met with local MPs about the challenges facing Epsom and St Helier. Lord Darzi’s investigation found that the Conservatives left a £37 billion black hole in NHS capital. We are reversing that trend, with the largest-ever capital budget for health. The £12.1 million for Epsom and St Helier trust for estate safety is in addition to the £207 million of capital that the NHS South West London integrated care board is receiving, including for maintenance backlogs. It will take time, but brick by brick Labour is rebuilding our NHS.
Joe Powell
The Imperial College healthcare NHS trust has the largest high-risk repair backlog in the country. The support from the Government estates safety fund is very welcome, but to solve this problem we ultimately need a new St Mary’s hospital. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of the new three-year St Mary’s taskforce, which aims to get to full planning consent and explore different financing models so that we can finally get this hospital built?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) are leading in partnership with the trust and Westminster city council to ensure that the people of his constituency have the hospital they deserve. As he knows, this will be the most complicated scheme in the new hospital programme, but that is no excuse for the years of delay that the scheme has faced. The trust now boasts the biggest high-risk repair backlog in the country, so my hon. Friend is right to ensure that this is not allowed to be put in the “too difficult” pile again. We look forward to engaging constructively and doing everything that we can to expedite the progress that is desperately needed for his community and our city.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
After years of underfunding, the Government agreed a record uplift of £3.1 billion for ’25-26 for the pharmacy sector. The pharmacy access scheme provides £19 million to support pharmacies in areas with fewer pharmacies, including in rural areas, but funding must always come with reform. Our hub and spoke legislation, if it is passed in the other place today, will allow pharmacies to streamline their dispensing processes, and it is a major step in the right direction in marrying reform with investment.
Caroline Voaden
I recently visited Modbury pharmacy, where owner Phil Dawes highlighted the challenges facing small rural pharmacies. He explained how the current funding model does not take into account the lower footfall and limited referral rates that are common in rural areas. We know that if a pharmacy in a small market town closes, it can cause extreme difficulties for people to access advice and medicines, particularly where there is little or no public transport and they have to go a long way. Will the Government consider introducing rural exceptions or adjusted funding thresholds so that we can keep community pharmacies open?
Stephen Kinnock
The pharmacy sector is facing huge challenges after massive cuts over the past 14 years. We are beginning to rebuild, but the hon. Lady is right that there are particular challenges for rural pharmacies. We are looking at comprehensive reform in the pharmacy sector involving the better use of technology, hub and spoke dispensing, and a range of other options that would enable better remote dispensing for rural pharmacies.
Charlotte Cane
I have visited pharmacies across my constituency. They are all struggling to provide a service, but are all very keen to take on the new services that the NHS is suggesting. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that rural and community pharmacies are properly staffed and equipped to deliver those community services, such as diabetes testing and weight management treatments, so that patients are not left behind just because of where they live?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady is right that pharmacies will play a central role in the shift from hospital to community that we will be putting at the heart of our 10-year plan. An important part of that, of course, is Pharmacy First. The take-up of Pharmacy First is not what we would like it to be, so we are looking at options to increase awareness of Pharmacy First and to free up pharmacists to be able to operate at the top of their licence. Part of that is about streamlining the dispensing side of what they do, and the hub and spoke legislation that I mentioned earlier will be really important in that context.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister has spoken many times about the importance of shifting from hospital to the community. I have visited many local pharmacies and met the chair of Community Pharmacy Nottinghamshire, seeing at first hand the important work they do to support communities in Mansfield. Does the Minister agree that community pharmacies have a key role to play in that shift and could help to take pressure off GP surgeries?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for the work he is doing in his constituency, including with pharmacies. In many ways, what we want to see is a culture change, because the interface between general practice and community pharmacy is not where it should be. We believe that pharmacists have a huge amount more to offer, but that requires a better digital interface and better information sharing—a single patient record. That sort of vehicle will be really important for delivering some of those reforms.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister speak about Pharmacy First, which was brought forward by the previous Government and welcomed by communities, the public and the pharmacists. Although I am pleased to see the Government continue it, why have they decided to cap the number of consultations that a pharmacist may do?
Stephen Kinnock
Part of that is about the financial arrangements for Pharmacy First, which need to be set at a level that incentivises pharmacists. Sadly, given the way in which the scheme was set up under the previous Government, those incentives were not working, which is one reason why the take-up of Pharmacy First has not been what it needs to be. It is a question not of capping but much more one of getting the right level of financial compensation for Pharmacy First so that it works and incentivises the system.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but part of the problem is that once pharmacists hit that cap, they are no longer paid the £17 per consultation. In turn, that means that either patients will be turned away, or the pharmacist must take the hit and pay for it themselves. That disjoins the system and could create extra costs, because patients who are turned away will turn up in other areas of primary care, such as their GP surgery. How does that fit with Darzi’s push towards community-based services?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman will have seen—and I am sure will welcome—the record uplift of £3.1 billion that we are putting into the pharmacy sector after years of underfunding, incompetence and neglect from the Conservative party. A big part of this is ensuring that the shift from hospital to community takes place, and we want pharmacists to be taking pressure off primary care. We have to make Pharmacy First work effectively, which means getting the allocation of funding right. That is what we are working on in terms of reforms. Now that we have the spending review and the package, that is what we will be delivering.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Increasing the resilience of the UK medical supply chain is a key priority. I regularly meet the team to routinely take action to mitigate supply issues, including requesting additional stock, identifying alternative global sources and issuing management advice. Although the Department has no plans to conduct a specific review, we constantly work to identify and take forward further actions to reduce the impact of medicine shortages, including targeted winter monitoring.
Sadik Al-Hassan
Having worked in community pharmacies for nearly 20 years, I have witnessed at first hand the pain that medicine shortages can cause North Somerset patients and their loved ones. Will the Minister meet me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, to discuss the outcome of our inquiry into these shortages?
Karin Smyth
I congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour on his dedicated career in community pharmacy, and thank him for the expertise that he brings to the work of the all-party parliamentary group to help Members understand the impact of this issue on patients and pharmacies. I am planning to hold a parliamentary event on the subject in the autumn, and I am keen to work with the APPG to make it a success for all Members.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Supply chain problems are just one of the many issues that are having an impact on community pharmacies. My local pharmacy in Noak Bridge is one of them, but it is also being hammered with national insurance increases, and the combination of these issues means that its long-term viability is at stake. Will the review that the Minister has mentioned include all the impacts on community pharmacies that are affecting their long-term viability?
Karin Smyth
The long-term viability of pharmacies and, indeed, the whole NHS was under threat from the right hon. Gentleman and his party, but thanks to this Government, it is being made fit for the future. This is a serious issue for all our constituents, and we want to make the system work better. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the 10-year plan that we will make the NHS fit for his constituents, mine and those of every other Member.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Across the country, community pharmacies struggle not only with supply chain problems but with dispensing some of the critical medicines for our constituents at a loss. I was concerned to read that higher prices for United States pharmaceuticals are on the table for the next stage of trade negotiations with Donald Trump, because an additional £1.5 billion would cost both the NHS and our community pharmacies dear. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the NHS, and the vital medicine supply on which we rely, will not be used as a bargaining chip in a trade deal with a highly unreliable US President?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady has asked an important question about the pharmaceutical industry, which is key to the country’s growth mission and to supporting all our constituents and the entire country. As we know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently attending the G7 summit. We have good relationships with America, and the Department is working closely across Government to ensure that the same stability of supply remains for our constituents.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Government inherited a ludicrous situation whereby patients could not get a GP appointment and GPs could not get a job, so one of my first acts was to cut red tape to give practices flexibility to hire GPs, along with an extra £82 million investment. Thanks to that combination of investment and reform, this Government have recruited an additional 1,700 GPs to the frontline since July, exceeding our target of 1,000. We have invested an extra £889 million in general practice this year, taking action to bring back the family doctor. We do not pretend to have solved all the problems, but change has begun and the best is still to come.
Naushabah Khan
I welcome the Government’s commitment to restoring the family doctor, and the recruitment of 1,700 additional GPs nationwide, but my constituency has yet to benefit from that. Concern has been expressed to me about the expansion of the additional roles reimbursement scheme to include only newly qualified GPs, which it is feared may be too restrictive. I have met local GP partners who share that concern, so will the Secretary of State meet us to discuss how the scheme can better support areas such as mine?
Wes Streeting
We are investing an extra £900 million in general practice, and have reformed the GP contract to help bring back the family doctor and end the 8 am scramble. That contract reform included further changes to make it easier to recruit GPs through the scheme. As my hon. Friend will see shortly when we publish the 10-year plan for health, general practice is at the heart of our proposals to build a neighbourhood health service. I am keen to work with her and with GPs to make it even easier to ensure that qualified GPs can get jobs and patients can get GP appointments, and I should be delighted to meet her.
Luke Murphy
After 14 years of the Conservatives running down the frontline of the NHS, many people in Basingstoke still struggle to gain access to their GPs. One issue that patients and GPs raise time and again is the lack of capital investment in new provision to meet growing housing need. Chineham medical practice, for example, was built to serve just 8,000 patients but now serves more than 18,000, and is set to serve many thousands more in the years to come. What more are the Government doing to enable every patient in Basingstoke to see their GP when they need to?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Just as this Government are delivering record home building with a huge target to build the homes that Britain needs, we also need to ensure that people get the local services that they deserve. That is exactly why this Government have invested an extra £102 million this year to create additional clinical space in over 1,000 GP practices, which will create new consultation rooms and make better use of existing space to deliver more appointments. I know the Chineham medical practice was one of the practices put forward by its integrated care board for funding, so I hope we will see that practice benefiting from this investment in the near future as we rebuild our NHS.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Government’s additional roles reimbursement scheme led to just three new GPs for my constituents in Wokingham, which is a drop in the ocean. More needs to be done to deliver GP practices in new developments such as Arborfield in south Wokingham. Why did Ministers not support the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made commitments to build GP surgeries in all new housing developments legally binding?
Wes Streeting
Probably because being that prescriptive about every housing development is not sensible, even if the thrust of what the hon. Member describes—that as new housing development is built, we need to ensure that local infrastructure goes alongside it—is the right approach. I take what he says about the number of GPs, and as I have said, we do not pretend to have fixed all the problems in 11 months, but with respect, those are three more GPs than were there before. I know there is more to do, but give me time, and we will rebuild general practice for his constituents and anyone else’s.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Access to GPs in my constituency of Chichester is being undermined by the closure of the Westbourne branch of Emsworth medical practice at the end of this month. Patients will now have to travel to Emsworth, but we are talking about a small rural village, and there is no public transport to get my elderly and vulnerable patients to that medical practice over the border. Will the Secretary of State please meet me to urgently discuss how we can protect this vital service in a rural village in Chichester?
Wes Streeting
I can well understand the hon. Member’s concern and her constituents’ concern. Practice closures are hard on communities wherever they are, but they disproportionately hit rural communities and those that suffer with poor transport connectivity. I would urge her in the first instance to raise the specific local issues with the ICB. However, I reassure her and other right hon. and hon. Members that the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities are very much in our mind—and, crucially, in the 10-year plan—and our thinking about how we build genuine neighbourhood health services in all types of neighbourhood.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I know this is an important issue for the hon. Member from the meeting we had about it last year. This Government are supporting local providers by recruiting an additional 8,500 mental health workers by the end of this Parliament. We are also expanding NHS talking therapies and piloting six new 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centres, including Hope Haven serving Whitehaven and rural Copeland.
Tim Farron
I thank the Minister for his reply, but this month the Care Quality Commission found high levels of staff vacancies in the already understaffed psychiatric intensive care units and acute mental health wards in South Cumbria, concluding that this is putting patient safety “at risk”. Yet, worryingly, the ICB in South Cumbria is making additional cuts of £142 million this year, with North Cumbria also making cuts. In the light of that, what is his plan to intervene to ensure that mental health staffing in Cumbria is increased to safe levels?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Member for that. There is no doubt that the NHS, universities and others need to do more to get students, trainees and qualified doctors and mental health specialists in places where the NHS and patients need them. We will publish a refreshed workforce plan later this year to ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places to care for patients when they need it.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The SNP has cut mental health services across Scotland, while failing to recruit the necessary workforce in rural communities such as those in Stirling and Strathallan. What assessment has the Department made of how devolved mismanagement of mental health services is affecting outcomes for patients in rural Scotland?
Stephen Kinnock
If we were to make an assessment of the way in which the SNP has mismanaged its responsibilities in Scotland we would be here for a very long time. I am not sure I can answer my hon. Friend’s question in the round, but I am sure that colleagues from the SNP will be welcoming the record investment that the UK Government have made in Scotland. I am certainly looking forward to the improved outcomes that they will be delivering as a result.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The spending review announced increases in NHS spending alongside more money for adult social care. By investing in DEXA scanners, we can more rapidly treat conditions such as osteoporosis, which particularly affect elderly women. Our urgent and emergency care plan promotes falls prevention technology for longer independent living and fewer hospital admissions. GPs are now incentivised to improve continuity of care, benefiting patients with long-term conditions.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his reply, but as the Secretary of State knows only too well, my borough of Havering contains one of the highest numbers of elderly people in the entire London region, yet Queen’s hospital in Romford remains chronically underfunded, overstretched and struggling to meet the growing healthcare needs of an ageing community. Will the Minister commit today to the serious investment that Queen’s hospital so desperately requires to ensure better health outcomes for older people across Romford?
Stephen Kinnock
I carefully note the fact that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is sitting next to me, has an interest in this issue, so I will tread very carefully with my answer. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has discussed this matter with the Minister for Secondary Care. The North East London health and care partnership integrated care board is responsible for delivery, implementation and funding decisions for local services, but the hon. Gentleman’s representations have been carefully noted today, not least by the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
One of the most important things we can do to support the health of the elderly is to ensure that they can get to see their local doctor. It is great to hear the Health Secretary talk about the improved access to appointments—we are seeing that in Chesterfield—but he is also right to say that it is the first step back up the mountain. The Government inherited a real crisis in GP access and the situation is particularly difficult in more deprived areas. Will my hon. Friend tell me what more we will do to ensure that people are able to see a GP, and in particular that practices that serve the most deprived communities can get access to the extra GPs they need?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will know that when we came into Government we inherited the absurd situation where the additional roles reimbursement scheme was weighed down by red tape and it was not actually possible to recruit GPs. We changed that. We invested an extra £82 million and as a result we have well over 1,000 more GPs on the frontline, but that is just the beginning. We have contract reform and £889 million of additional investment in general practice, and we are moving forward with an online booking system, which will be obligatory by 1 October. We have much more work to do—for example, around the interface with pharmacy; we are working hard on that. There is a lot more to do, but my hon. Friend is right that the first step up the mountain has been taken.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Last health questions, I asked about delays to crucial medications in A&E and the Secretary of State said he was interested to hear more, but his office said he would delegate it to a Minister and we still have not been offered a date, so could I encourage him to look into that, please? The U-turn on winter fuel will help the elderly to stay warm and healthy this winter, but another way to help elderly people would be to protect them from the respiratory syncytial virus. Will the Government extend the vaccination to the over-80s?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, but I did not quite catch the word she used. The virus was called? [Interruption.] Oh—RSV, yes. We are certainly looking at increasing the coverage of the RSV vaccination. I do not have the statistics to hand at the moment, but I would be happy to write to her on that point.
Dr Johnson
Many of those on waiting lists are elderly and have chronic conditions; rather than seeing consultants at regular intervals, which may coincide with them being relatively well, they are often kept on open appointments so that they can call when they are ill. This is efficient and responsive care. Is the Minister aware that this provision is being stopped in some areas in order to improve figures? I will quote from a letter about an elderly patient:
“I regret cannot keep him on my waiting list under the open appointment”
for treatment, and,
“I have explained the politics of everything and where we are at.”
Being re-referred to a GP each time is expensive and a waste of time. Can the Minister explain why doctors are being asked to make decisions for political reasons, instead of clinical ones?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not think any decisions are being made for political reasons—our medical and health staff are very much focused on doing the right thing from a clinical point of view. The hon. Lady raises an important point about continuity of care, with people constantly having to be re-referred into the system. Part of the reason for that is the utter incompetence with which the previous Government managed our primary care system, which has resulted in people being passed from pillar to post, the additional roles reimbursement scheme not actually being about having GPs on the frontline, but about having other staff, which creates more friction in the system, and poorer continuity of care. This Government are going to bring back the family doctor—that is the way to get our general practice back on its feet.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government are delivering record investment in our NHS, but that investment is drawn from taxpayers, and we have a responsibility to every taxpayer in the land—as well as to patients—to ensure that every single penny is well spent. That is why that investment is matched with bold reform, so that we get as much value as possible for every penny. The abolition of NHS England will slash duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy, and I am pleased to report to the House that we have slashed spending on agency staff by almost £1 billion compared with last year. All those savings are being reinvested into frontline care.
Mark Ferguson
From speaking to my local NHS trust in Gateshead, I know the value it places on driving costs down, but it still faces financial pressures. Key among those are issues related to the digital capital gap. We are really keen in Gateshead to improve that situation and to allow more people to access the NHS remotely. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Gateshead NHS trust to talk about how we can tackle that?
Wes Streeting
I would be delighted to do so. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have to ensure that the NHS is not only benefiting from, but at the forefront of the revolution taking place in digital services and medical technology. It is key to driving productivity and financial sustainability. That is why, at the spending review, the Chancellor announced that we would invest up to £10 billion in NHS technology and digital transformation; unlike our predecessors, we will not raid tech budgets to plug shortfalls in day-to-day spending. Just this month, we announced the modernisation of the NHS app, so that patients can receive test results and book appointments, saving £200 million in stamps, envelopes and letters.
Lillian Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for his earlier reply. In Scotland, there are more quangos than MSPs. After four years and £30 million of taxpayers’ cash down the drain, the SNP has scrapped its plans for a national care service—its flagship policy—which was seen as a significant setback for Scottish social care reform, and now we have people going to the pub in chauffeur-driven ministerial cars. Will the Secretary of State advise his Scottish counterpart on how to stop wasting Scottish taxpayers’ money?
Wes Streeting
Given the state of the NHS in Scotland, I suspect my counterpart needed to go and drown his sorrows. The truth is that the longer the SNP is in government, the longer the NHS in Scotland is on the road to nowhere. The SNP is now on its fifth health plan in four years. Thanks to the decisions taken by the Chancellor, it is not just the NHS in England that is receiving record investment, but the Scottish Government. I have used that investment to cut waiting lists by almost a quarter of a million people; the same could be true in Scotland, if the Scottish people boot out the SNP and elect Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie to deliver the change that Scotland’s NHS needs.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
A good way to save money in the NHS is to invest in palliative and end-of-life care, because it averts costs that would otherwise go into the acute sector, including into ambulances. However, this Government are taking money from that sector through their national insurance rises. Given that integrated care boards are supposed to commission palliative care, will the Secretary of State commit in the 10-year health plan to a proper revenue funding model for hospices, and for a minimum service specification for palliative care?
Wes Streeting
I can reassure the hon. Member that end-of-life care is featured in the 10-year plan for health. I also recognise the pressure on our hospice sector, which is why this Government, as well as delivering £26 million through the children’s hospice grant, committed £100 million of capital investment— the biggest in a generation for our hospices. None the less, hospices do rely on the generosity of donors and I am keen to work in partnership with the sector to look at what more we can do to encourage investment. The final thing I would say is that the Opposition parties welcomed the investment in the national health service while opposing the means of raising it. They cannot have it both ways; either they support the investment and the revenue raisers or they have to be honest with the public that they would be cutting the NHS.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
One of the most egregious examples of waste in recent years was the almost £10 billion spent on useless personal protective equipment during the pandemic. When the Treasury eventually recovers some of that money, will the Secretary of State assure me that Scottish taxpayers will benefit in the usual way through the usual channels?
Wes Streeting
Fiscal decisions and spending are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman of two things. First, the way in which the taxpayers of this country were ripped off during a national emergency was a total disgrace, and this Government are determined to get our money back and reinvest it in frontline services, where it should always have been. Secondly, I can reassure him that, so long as there is a Labour Government here in Westminster, Scotland will continue to benefit from the investment it needs to sort out its public services. Now it just needs a Labour Government in Scotland to spend that money wisely.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government are committed to fixing the NHS and reducing A&E waiting times. Our new urgent and emergency care plan is backed by nearly £400 million of investment to deliver new urgent treatment centres, mental health assessment centres and almost 400 new ambulances. Alongside that investment, we are reforming urgent and emergency care so that more patients are treated at the scene or in their homes where appropriate, which is better for them and will help to unclog A&E departments. Lots has been done, but there is much more to do.
James Asser
The Minister for Secondary Care recently visited my constituency and saw the pressures that Newham hospital A&E was under. That is partly due to the pressures left by the previous Conservative Government, and partly due to capacity issues resulting from a massive growth in population in the borough. Further pressures will come as we regenerate the massive areas of brownfield site in the Royal Docks. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that, as well as the excellent work being done on day-to-day capacity, we will be looking at infrastructure over the longer term to make sure that we are not only dealing with the growth that we have had, but future-proofing for the population growth to come?
Wes Streeting
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care enjoyed her visit, and I thank the staff at Newham hospital for the work they do, which also benefits my constituents. We need to make sure that we are supporting hospitals across our country to meet need, because we are part of a wider ecosystem—I noticed that that point was also powerfully made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) in his question. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) is right to raise increasing demand and pressures, which is why we will shortly publish our 10-year plan for health. I am happy to report that Whipps Cross and Newham hospitals have also been provisionally allocated £28 million this year to improve buildings and estates.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Government continue to claim that they wish to expand community diagnostic centres to speed up scanning and treatment of patients and therefore reduce demand on the likes of A&E. If that is the case, why are they cutting the revenue tariffs that were available to the community diagnostic centres under the previous Conservative Government, which has already impacted the financial viability of the CDCs and access for patients?
Wes Streeting
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that, since this Government came to power, we have reduced the size of NHS waiting lists by a quarter of a million. NHS waiting lists are coming down—latest figures show that this is the first time in 17 years that waiting lists have fallen in the month of April—so we are making progress, not least thanks to the investment that we are putting into community diagnostic centres. The hon. Gentleman has some brass neck to complain about NHS services under this Government, when we are cleaning up the mess that the previous Government left behind.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 banned the use of commercial sunbeds for under-18s, requiring businesses to prevent under-age use. The Department has commissioned the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to review the Act, including the effectiveness of the under-18 ban.
Olivia Blake
According to Cancer Research UK, 86% of melanoma skin cancer cases are preventable. My constituent Charlotte, who has stage 4 melanoma, is leading a campaign alongside Melanoma Focus to get better enforcement for the ban on sunbeds for under-18s and to stop the use of harmful melanotan II products such as tanning nasal sprays and injections. For under-35s, just one session on the sunbed is enough UV exposure to increase the risk of melanoma to 59%. Prevention is better than cure. Will the Minister meet us to discuss the effectiveness of the ban and preventive measures such as access to free sunscreen at events?
Karin Smyth
As someone who was diagnosed myself with an earlier stage melanoma, I really commend the work of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I never used sunbeds and I spent holidays in my youth in Ireland, so I never saw much sun either—sorry to the Irish tourism board. As my hon. Friend says, it is an overwhelmingly preventable cancer, including by using sunscreen, better clothing, shading and no sunbeds. It is up to event organisers to provide sunscreen at events, but my hon. Friend is right. I want to personally thank Melanoma Focus for the support it gave me during my diagnosis. There are great charities out there to support people. I am sure a Minister will be in contact with my hon. Friend and her constituent soon to highlight the prevention aspects of this disease.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Until his recent death, my constituent Luke Webster had lived with alternating hemiplegia of childhood. His life was short and he spent much of it being moved between different care facilities, to the frustration of his family. At one such facility, Luke was abused. Will the Minister meet me and Luke’s mother to discuss improved safeguards—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think this is relevant to sun tanning. Let us move on.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
More patients are now getting world-leading testing technology in the NHS as part of our mission to revolutionise cancer care in this country. The Government are spending £600 million a year in capital on diagnostics, including for the first time funding for the automation of histopathology laboratories to improve productivity. We are also funding pathology networks to reach digital maturity by 2026, which will reduce unnecessary waits and repeated tests.
Mike Martin
My constituent Julian noticed that he had a mole on his chest that was growing and bleeding. Members of his family had died from skin cancer, so he was very concerned and went to his GP. He was referred to the Kent integrated dermatology service and was told that the results would come back in four weeks. They came back in 17 weeks. I know that this issue is of personal concern to the Minister, so would she please investigate what happened and write to me?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member raises an awful case on behalf of his constituent. Of course, our targeting of waiting lists includes diagnostics. What happened in that case should not happen anywhere, and I will ensure that he gets a response as soon as possible.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Reducing waiting times for cancer diagnosis remains a key priority. Under this Government, an extra 99,000 patients have had cancer diagnosed or ruled out. This has been supported by investment, including in Cancer 360—a digital innovation that brings patient data into one central platform—and in NHS England’s cancer innovation open call to fast-track cutting-edge interventions into practice. Our forthcoming national cancer plan will set out how we will speed up cancer diagnosis even further.
Mr Alaba
Our Labour Government have recently invested in a new state-of-the-art linear accelerator machine in Southend hospital. The machine is the first of its type in the country and will drastically improve cancer treatments. Please can the Minister outline how record levels of investment, such as in the LINAC machine and as announced at the spending review, will finally mean that the NHS will be there when we need it?
Karin Smyth
I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit from the £70 million investment. These machines are game changing and will reduce the number of visits for his constituents. They are also more reliable, which gives more capacity to the system. That is better for staff, as there will be less appointment cancellations. That is exactly the sort of thing we want to see more of, and we are delivering that under this Government. It is the result of our drive to reduce long waits and treat more people quicker. That was reinforced in last week’s spending review, and it is exactly what his constituents deserve.
Paulette Hamilton
Early diagnosis of less survivable cancers is vital if survival rates are to improve. What assessment has the Department made of the report by the all-party parliamentary group on less survivable cancers that looks at earlier detection and faster diagnosis, and what steps are the Department taking to deliver on this?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue. I commend her great work not just on the APPG but on leading the Health and Social Care Committee on behalf of its Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). She is right to highlight that it is a priority for the Government to diagnose cancers earlier and improve survival rates. That is particularly important for the group of people with rare cancers. The APPG’s report will inform the development of our national cancer plan, which will seek to include all aspects of care throughout the entirety of the cancer pathway.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Part of a successful cancer journey is swift cancer treatment as well as swift diagnosis. My constituent Catherine was diagnosed last year with stage 3 breast cancer. She had a mastectomy and went through chemotherapy. She was then meant to begin a course of radiotherapy in December, but as of May that still had not begun. What can the Department do to ensure that those unacceptable delays do not happen and lives can be saved?
Karin Smyth
Many hon. Members across the House rightly highlight the actual experience of people throughout the entire pathway. We have heard about the investment we are making in machines and in staff to ensure, on exactly this point, that people get not just that faster diagnosis—that is so important, particularly if cancer is ruled out—but faster care across the entire pathway. The majority of people on waiting lists are on them for diagnostics, which is exactly why we are investing more in capital and investing in staff to ensure that the process is quicker and better for patients. If the hon. Member wants to write to me about any particular issues, I will obviously respond to her.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Every 17 minutes, someone in Yorkshire is told that they have cancer. Tomorrow, I will be launching a report for Yorkshire Cancer Research, which is based in my constituency, that will set out key recommendations. Will the Minister meet us to talk about how we can feed them into the national cancer plan?
Karin Smyth
The work that the hon. Member is doing locally with that group is essential. I will ensure that we have a good response for him, whether it is meeting me or a colleague.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
We are getting the NHS back on its feet and making it fit for the future by shifting care to the community with £889 million more for GPs, 1,700 additional frontline GPs, 700,000 extra urgent dental appointments annually and a 19% uplift to the community pharmacy contract. Looking to the future, our commitment to building a neighbourhood health service is right at the heart of our 10-year plan.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I am delighted by the Government’s commitment to moving healthcare closer to the community, including through the establishment of neighbourhood health centres. That is exactly what we need in Aylesbury, and I am pleased that all our key healthcare providers, including the NHS trust and several GP practices, are already working together to better integrate their care, which is an important step in the right direction. Will the Minister update me on his progress towards the model of neighbourhood-based healthcare? Can he advise what more Aylesbury’s healthcare providers can do to ensure that my residents benefit from the Government’s work in this area?
Stephen Kinnock
It is really good to hear about the fantastic work going on in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are working with systems to move to a neighbourhood health model by building on existing good practice, particularly around the development of multidisciplinary teams. Aylesbury is an outstanding example of that. Ahead of the 10-year health plan’s publication, local communities can continue to make progress by utilising the neighbourhood health guidelines that were published back in January.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Dental patients with untreated need end up in hospitals. In places like Hedon in my constituency, we have seen more and more dental practices moving away from the NHS. I have a constituent who found it took her three years to get her child their first check-up, and that dental practice has now ceased to look after NHS patients. She also cannot get the NHS treatment she deserves herself, even though she had a child in February. What in the 10-year plan will change that and ensure that everyone can get access to NHS dentistry?
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member is right to point to children’s dental health. After we won the election in July, I looked across my portfolio and it was pretty much a car crash in every aspect, thanks to the incompetence of previous Governments. Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all is that the biggest reason five to nine-year-old children are admitted to hospital is to have their rotten teeth removed. That is a Dickensian state of affairs. We are working with the British Dental Association on contract reform. We have got to incentivise NHS dentistry, do away with the false economy set up under the last Government and get dentistry back to where it needs to be.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The saying goes that it takes a village to raise a baby, meaning that those in our community provide families with vital support. Does the Minister agree that we need to invest in more community midwives to ensure that families are properly supported through the whole of pregnancy and after birth?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The role that midwives play, alongside other community health services such as district nurses, has been chronically underfunded and neglected over the past 14 years. She will be pleased to know that the role of community healthcare is front and centre in our 10-year plan, and I think she will be interested in and pleased with what she sees when that plan is published.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Darzi report pointed out that 13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but who cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said that we cannot fix the NHS until we fix social care. It is nearly six months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission, but the talks were cancelled and never rescheduled and the commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk about fixing social care so that everyone gets the care they deserve?
Stephen Kinnock
I have to correct the hon. Lady: the commission is up and running, Baroness Casey has started meetings and she had a roundtable just a few weeks ago with people who have lived experience. The hon. Lady is therefore not correct on that point and I am sure that she will want to correct the record.
On the point about delayed discharge, the hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are reforming the better care fund to get much better interface between hospitals, care and local authorities. That system and those relationships can and should work much better, but there are pressing, long-term challenges. We are conscious of that and are working at pace with Baroness Casey to ensure that those reforms are delivered.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As we have just heard, it is widely acknowledged that the crisis in social care is a cause of dangerously high occupancy rates in hospitals that lead to the horrors of corridor care, the dreadful ambulance waiting times that we have seen and a knock-on effect on the community. When I was contacted by the family of a terminally ill man in Wem in my constituency last month, I was reminded that not only is care often provided in the wrong place, but it is often not available at all. Will the Government bring forward the timeline for the horribly delayed Casey review to report back, get it done this year and heed Liberal Democrat calls for cross-party talks so that we can agree on a long-term solution for the crisis?
Stephen Kinnock
May I just tackle the idea that we are not working at pace on these issues? We have had the unpaid carer’s uplift from £151 to £196, which is the biggest uplift in carer’s allowance since the 1970s when the policy was brought in; hundreds of millions of pounds’ uplift in the disabled facilities grant; and groundbreaking legislation for a fair pay agreement for care workers. Those are just some of the immediate steps that we have taken. The first phase of the Casey review will report next year and we continue to work closely with Baroness Casey to deliver the reforms that are so desperately needed after 14 years of neglect, including a number of years when the Liberal Democrats were in government.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Waiting lists are at their lowest level for two years, we have taken almost a quarter of a million patients off waiting lists and for the first time in 17 years waiting lists were cut in April. There is a long way to go, but this Government are finally putting the NHS on the road to recovery. Through our plan for change, I have announced that the NHS will also be at the forefront of the revolution in life sciences. Through the NHS app, patients will be linked up with relevant trials to boost our life sciences sector, generate investment for the NHS and develop the medicines of the future.
Charlie Dewhirst
It is nearly four years since Professor Sir Chris Whitty published his striking report on health in coastal communities. Covid inevitably delayed implementation, so will the Secretary of State look again at that report, deliver on the chief medical officer’s recommendations and ensure that my constituents in Bridlington and The Wolds can access the health services that they need?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is right to commend Sir Chris Whitty’s report. We have taken that into consideration, as well as the wider consultation we did in preparation for our 10-year plan for health, which will commit to tackling the gross health inequalities that affect our country, particularly in rural and coastal communities.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is thanks to the fact that his constituents sent him to this House of Commons that we have a Labour Government able to deliver, with him, for his community.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
May I, through the Secretary of State, pass on my best wishes to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton)? In front of the Health and Social Care Committee in January, NHS England’s then chief financial officer set out that pretty much all the additional funding to the NHS last year would be absorbed by pay rises, national insurance contributions and inflation. What proportion of the latest additional funding will be absorbed in the same way?
Wes Streeting
First, I just do not buy the argument that investing in our staff is somehow not investing in the NHS. Who on earth do the Opposition think provides the treatment, delivers the care, organises the clinics and delivers the services? Even in this great new world of technology, the NHS will always be a people-based service and I am proud that this is a Government who deliver for staff. We are also waging war on waste, and that is how we can deliver fair pay for staff and improve care for patients. If only the Conservatives had done that when they had the chance.
Edward Argar
The right hon. Gentleman could not answer that question, but hopefully we will get a more positive response to this one. I recently had the privilege of meeting Dr Susan Michaelis and her husband Tristan, who have set up the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which large numbers of Members of all parties across the House have backed. They are seeking £20 million over five years—a tiny sum in the context of the overall NHS budget—to research lobular breast cancer, which Susan is currently battling, to help improve outcomes. Her immediate ask is even simpler: it is for the Secretary of State to meet her in person to discuss the campaign and its aims. He is a decent man. Will he agree to do that?
Wes Streeting
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question and, even more importantly, I thank the amazing campaigners for what they are doing. This is probably the easiest question he is ever going to ask me. The answer is, of course, an emphatic yes.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
Can I first thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Care for the considerable amount of work he has done to support the House as it makes its deliberations on this important issue? Of course, the Government are neutral; it is for the House to decide. There is not money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it is for Members of this House and the other place, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether to proceed. That is a decision that this Government will respect either way.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Wes Streeting
I should just say for the record that it is thanks to my friends at the Treasury that we are able to do so much to invest in our health service. It is important to put that on record ahead of the Budget. The hon. Lady raises a really serious issue, and we are looking carefully at what we can do to ensure that we get great people into our health service and that they can look forward to a great career. We are not in the right place as a country now; we need to be in a better place. The 10-year plan will set out our ambitions on workforce and we will publish a new workforce plan later this year.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Government are carefully considering the work of the patient safety commissioner and her report, which sets out the options for redress. This is a complex issue involving input from different Government Departments. We will provide a further update on the commissioner’s report soon.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My constituency, in Scotland, has a significant shortage of health and social care workers, despite extensive efforts to advertise recruitment to get people in, as replicated in parts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The rug has been pulled out from under that by the changes to immigration policy and visas for that sector. Will the Secretary of State commit to pushing this harder in Cabinet to ensure that we can have more geographic and sectoral visas?
Wes Streeting
I am really proud of the contribution that overseas workers make to health and social care services across our country. If they all left tomorrow, the services would simply collapse. But I think there is an overreliance on overseas staff in health and care services, and that is contributing to levels of net migration that are simply unsustainable. I have a responsibility to help the Home Secretary bring those numbers down and to give opportunities, through better pay and career progression, to home-grown talent, and that is what we will do.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am sorry to hear about the issues that my hon. Friend’s constituents are experiencing. I understand that he has raised the issue with the North East and North Cumbria ICB, which is investigating his concerns. I would be happy to be kept informed, and if he is not happy with the outcome of that investigation, he should certainly come back to me. This Government are committed to supporting community pharmacies after a decade of underfunding and neglect. We recently agreed a record uplift to £3.1 billion for 2025-26.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State may well be aware of the greater awareness among young people of nicotine pouches. That seems to be a gap in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill currently going through Parliament. Will he commit to look at this issue to ensure that it is covered and that we bar this alongside other forms of tobacco and nicotine?
Wes Streeting
As the hon. Gentleman knows through bitter experience, that rotten industry always finds a way, and we have to keep on top of it and tackle the scourge of nicotine addiction. He knows about this issue better than most, he having campaigned so assiduously on it, and he is right to raise it, so let us look at what we can do to strengthen the Bill, if we can, as it goes through Parliament.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
Such contraceptives are an emerging technology that will be subject to clinical and other relevant assessment before being considered for use in England. The Government remain committed to ensuring that women can access their preferred method in a timely manner. A range of contraception is available free of charge from a range of settings. That includes a copper coil, which is a non-hormonal, non-steroidal contraceptive device.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In Prime Minister’s questions last week, I raised the need for a universal national screening programme for type 1 diabetes. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss this, so that it could form part of the 10-year plan, given that it fits so neatly into prevention of issues such as diabetic ketoacidosis over treatment?
Wes Streeting
I was in the Chamber to hear the hon. Member’s question. Obviously we are led by clinical advice when it comes to decisions on screening programmes, but I understand the case she makes. I would be delighted to ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
We have provided hospices in England with a record £100 million in capital funding, as my hon. Friend will know. ICBs are responsible for commissioning palliative and end-of-life care services, including hospices, to meet the needs of their local populations. NHS England has published statutory guidance to support that. I would of course be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The British Dental Association recently published analysis showing that the proportion of NHS funding spent on dentistry more than halved under the Conservatives, who failed to account for inflation and demand to the cost of £1 billion. It is no wonder that we have dental deserts across much of the country. Will the Secretary of State ensure that dentistry receives its fair share of funding from the new NHS funding allocated in the spending review?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the neglect and incompetence of the past 14 years. We are fighting to get NHS dentistry back to where it needs to be. An important first step, of course, is the 700,000 additional urgent appointments and supervised tooth-brushing programme, but long-term contract reform is what is needed, alongside the investment that will come through the spending review.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
According to the Trussell Trust, the impact of hunger and hardship on people’s health is driving an extra £6.3 billion in Government healthcare spending. What part is the Department playing in reducing hunger and hardship—and thus the related healthcare cost—in my constituency and across the country?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important point. It is truly shameful that 4.5 million children in the UK now live in poverty. We are developing an ambitious strategy that tackles root causes, and we are already taking action. Alongside cross-Government work on free school meals, breakfast clubs and funded childcare, the Department is investing £56 million in Start for Life services and supporting healthy diets for 358,000 people through Healthy Start.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Opticians are important medical professionals for our community. Unfortunately, when I spoke to the Hertfordshire and West Essex integrated care board, I was told that it will not allow opticians to perform vital services such as treating minor eye injuries, as doing so is deemed too expensive, despite that being the norm in the areas surrounding my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure a fair system across the country, rather than a postcode lottery?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the anomalies in the eyecare system. There are concerns about the role that some aspects of the independent sector are playing, particularly in the light of the lucrative nature of cataract operations. If he writes to me, I will be happy to set out the issues, and I guarantee that he will get the response in due course.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Infertility is a medical condition that affects one in six couples in the UK, but access to NHS treatment is a postcode lottery, with less than 10% of ICBs in England offering the recommended three cycles of IVF. Does the Minister agree that we need to end that postcode lottery, and will she meet me and campaigners such as Fertility Action to discuss how we can end it for good?
Karin Smyth
In the light of the broader pressures and changes in the NHS, we have been considering the ambitions on fertility services and fairness for all couples. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is reviewing its fertility guidelines, which will be the clinical standard for the future. I know that my hon. Friend will ensure that she and the group she talks about keep an eye on that, and that she will work with them. I am happy to keep working with her on how we best support ICBs to improve their local offer.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I have raised with Ministers before my concerns about the closure of St Mark’s walk-in urgent care centre in Maidenhead. Frimley ICB has confirmed yet again that it will not reopen the centre, against the will of the majority of Maidenhead residents. Will the Secretary of State meet me and local campaigners to see how we can finally get St Mark’s walk-in centre back open after five years of closure?
Wes Streeting
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will have noted, through his representations as a constituency MP, that he could not have fought harder to save that service. We devolve these sorts of decisions to ICBs, in order that they make decisions closer to the communities that they serve, with the conviction that those sorts of decisions are better taken locally than centralised in Whitehall. I understand the case that he makes, but having given ICBs a challenge, resources and freedom, we Ministers must resist the temptation to meddle every time they make decisions that they believe are right for the community, even if those decisions are controversial.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Will the Minister look into minimising the pain of patients going through hysteroscopy and biopsy procedures by requesting that medical professionals fully brief them on anaesthetics and pain relief in advance of procedures to ensure that they can plan accordingly?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend raises an important question. We are committed to improving women’s experience of gynaecological procedures, including hysteroscopies. Women should be provided with information prior to their procedure so that they can make an informed decision about the procedure and pain relief options, including local or general anaesthetic. He will probably make further representations, which we will certainly look at.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
One of the ways in which the Secretary of State has reduced the waiting list is by turbocharging the use of the private sector since January, meaning that half a million people have been treated in irreducible spare capacity. Has that experience elicited any learnings that the Secretary of State is able to take into the wider reform agenda for the NHS?
Wes Streeting
Absolutely: the NHS always does better under a Labour Government.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Barking community hospital in my constituency has been providing antenatal services to mothers in Barking for many years, and women also use its services to give birth. I was therefore really disappointed when I heard last week that the maternity birthing unit is likely to close. Many in my community are deeply concerned. They are being redirected to Newham hospital, which the Care Quality Commission has rated as “requires improvement”. Women deserve to give birth in a safe clinical environment. Will Ministers ensure that additional attention and resources are provided to Newham hospital, so that it improves its standards and my constituents who are being redirected to give birth there can do so in a safe clinical space?
Wes Streeting
Making sure that women are giving birth safely is the ultimate priority and the least that women deserve. I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety about this reconfiguration, and she is right to raise that with the ICB in the first instance. We are happy to meet her as Ministers, too. The crucial thing is that the services are configured and delivered in a way that prioritises the safety of women and their babies.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In March, the Minister for Care told me that no decision could be taken on a new dental school at the University of East Anglia until the spending review settlement was known. Now that we know it, will he instruct the Office for Students to allocate new training places at the UEA from 2026?
Stephen Kinnock
The spending review has just been published. The key now is to secure the allocations within the overall financial envelope. That will take a matter of weeks, and I will be happy to report back to the hon. Member once we have that clarity.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Between 2001 and 2011, the 15% health inequalities weighting in NHS allocations made a positive, measurable difference to the health of deprived people. Unfortunately, it was cut to 10% in 2015. With the spending review’s increase in funding to the NHS, when will the health inequalities weighting reach 15%?
Wes Streeting
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She is right to highlight the importance of funding following inequalities to redress that imbalance. I think she will be pleased with where we are with the 10-year plan for health, and I would be delighted to meet her to discuss it.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
People in East Devon have been told that they must now travel to Exeter for audiology services that they previously received at their local community hospital. What steps are the Government taking to encourage new providers to restore accessible audiology services?
Wes Streeting
That has been a running theme this morning, which will not be lost on Ministers. We will ensure, as we deliver neighbourhood health services, that people can receive care closer to home, wherever they live. We have heard that message loud and clear today, and I think the hon. Member will see that priority reflected in our 10-year plan for health.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as my brother is a GP. When my residents are able to get a GP appointment, they are frustrated when they are sent halfway across the borough to a different surgery from the one they are registered with by their primary care network. Can we address that, and is it part of our proposals in the new GP contract?
Wes Streeting
We do want to put GPs at the heart of neighbourhood health services, and we want people to have care close to home. There are benefits to primary care working at scale, so I would not want to criticise them for doing that. The important thing is different courses for different horses. Some of us are much more mobile, more active and more online and would welcome that flexibility. For others, continuity of care that is close to home, or indeed in their home, is important. It is important that people get the right care, in the right place, at the right time, wherever they live, and that is what we will deliver.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am grateful for the consideration the Secretary of State has already given to finding a fairer and more effective way of compensating those injured by a covid vaccination, but he knows that those who are profoundly affected by such injuries are anxious for news. Can he give me, and indeed them, a progress report?
Wes Streeting
I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the constituents of his I have met and other campaigners that I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about how we deal with that and other issues that have been raised this morning, including the sodium valproate scandal. He knows the complexities involved, and I have been grateful for his advice as a former Attorney General. I do not have specific progress to report now, but I reassure him and campaigners that this issue has not gone off the boil and we are working to find a resolution.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
The challenge of finding and keeping an NHS dentist is raised with me time and again across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, and I welcome the early action that this Labour Government have taken to introduce more than 19,000 urgent care appointments across our integrated care board area. What will be the next steps to help ensure that NHS dentistry is opened up again to everybody?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and her relentless campaigning on this issue. She is right that the 700,000 urgent dental appointments are a first step, and we are looking to embed that so that it goes forward every year of this Parliament. The broader issue is around contract reform. There is no perfect contract system—the current one clearly is not working—and we are looking at options around sessional payments, capitation, and getting a contract that works and brings dentists back into the NHS.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that my local ICB in Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes is set to merge with Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The new ICB will cover a population of about 3 million people. Given the difficulties we have had securing a GP surgery in Wixams, will the Secretary of State set out how supersizing that quango will help rural mid-Beds to get the local healthcare it needs?
Wes Streeting
May I respectfully say that that was part of the problem with Conservative thinking? They thought that the answer to the NHS crisis was more quangos, and they measured success in the number of ICBs, not the number of appointments and the size of the waiting list. We are taking a different approach, slashing bureaucracy and reinvesting in the front line. We are not centralising but decentralising, and cutting waiting lists—a record that the Conservative party cannot begin to touch.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago at my constituency surgery, though tears my constituent Amy explained how, following a hip operation in 2008, she suffered progressive nerve damage due to repeated failures in diagnosis, referral and treatment. Despite raising concerns for years, she was told that her pain was common. A nerve test in 2015 confirmed damage, and further tests last year showed a significant deterioration. After 17 years she has only now been offered surgery. All Amy wants to know is what steps are being taken to ensure that no other patient is left permanently disabled due to such prolonged and systemic failure—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is very important, but why does the hon. Member not want others to get in?
Wes Streeting
First, on behalf of the NHS I apologise to my hon. Friend’s constituent. That is an intolerable situation, but sadly not rare or exceptional. There is too much of that happening, and a culture of cover-up and covering reputations, rather than being honest with patients about failures. We are changing the culture. Safety is at the heart of the 10-year plan, and I would be delighted to talk to my hon. Friend further about his constituent’s case.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This morning I attended an event about bladder cancer. Bladder cancer is the fifth highest killer in the United Kingdom, and people were anxious to meet the Minister and discuss those matters. Will he agree to meet bladder cancer organisations to take forward their four objectives to make things better for people in the United Kingdom?
Wes Streeting
I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton), who is the Minister responsible for cancer, would be delighted to meet campaigners, particularly as we put together the national cancer plan. We want to ensure that we capture every type of cancer, and genuinely improve cancer care for everyone in our country.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
The Minister may have seen my constituent Mollie Mulheron recently featured on “Newsnight”. Our local ICB recently refused her access to fertility treatment after recovery from an aggressive cancer with a high likelihood that her illness will return. Will the Minister meet me and Mollie to discuss that issue, and access to fertility treatment for cancer survivors and patients?
Wes Streeting
Yes, I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets that meeting.
Points of Order
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During proceedings of the House on 2 June 2025, it became clear that some media organisations had been given access to the strategic defence review document before Parliament. We also became aware that the timing of such early access may have been different for different organisations. I asked a parliamentary question on the matter of who and when, and although the Government did not answer the question, they made clear that trade associations and think-tanks had also been given early access. I asked again, and they refused to answer but made clear that trade unions and “our people” had been given early access.
Mr Speaker, Ministers are required to answer questions using the Nolan principles, which include accountability and openness. The principles state:
“Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
The Government have not followed these processes in answering the question, and that is particularly relevant to the Minister for the Armed Forces, because in his declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, he declares membership of the GMB and Unite, and that a family member is working as a constituent for Babcock International, and that—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has raised a point of order with me, but she cannot go into a full speech. I have got the message and I am very clear on the message. I have no responsibility for the quality of answers to written parliamentary questions, but I know—this is key—that the Procedure Committee takes a close interest in the matter. She might therefore like to raise it with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who Chairs the Committee.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Let me finish with this one, please. Raising the matter with the Procedure Committee would be a good way to take this forward.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We now know undoubtedly that The Sunday Times was given access to the White Paper, because people could read most of it in The Sunday Times the day before Parliament saw it, although crucially the article did not mention up to 12 new SSNs—nuclear-powered attack submarines. I will explain in a quick second why that is important, Mr Speaker.
At 10.30 on the Monday morning, journalists were invited to a reading room in Horse Guards Parade, where they were given access to the White Paper. Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states:
“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”
Thus, that was clearly a breach of the code.
However, there was an earlier sitting in the reading room, at 8 am, when we know the White Paper was also seen by members of defence companies, trade associations, academics, think-tanks and trade unionists, at the same time that the markets were opening. Mr Speaker, there is a possibility of insider trading. The share price of Babcock, which would benefit from maintaining SSNs, leapt very early on after 8 am—
Mr Speaker
No, no, no. Please do not take advantage of the Chair. Points of order are meant to be a little bit more punchy—they are not full-blown statements. I take very seriously the points that have been made, and that is why I raised them myself at the time. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for reiterating my words.
I have no responsibility for the ministerial code. If the House so wishes, that needs to change, because unfortunately it makes a nonsense. There is a ministerial code, but it is not being kept to as we would expect. It is for this House to change the ministerial code if it wishes to do so, or I would be more than happy for the Government to change it if they cannot accept it, because we cannot have this continual breaking of the ministerial code. It is appalling and it is unacceptable.
This is not a political point. In the end, I am here to uphold the rights of Back Benchers. Back Benchers should hear things first—if documents are to be given out, they should be given to MPs. I am here to support MPs, but unfortunately in this particular area I do not have the power to do so. I wish I had, because things would be different.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Over the past few days, we have recognised Jo Cox’s murder. Given the additional focus and the encouragement of the targeting of MPs using false information, can you advise us, as the person responsible for the safety of Members of Parliament, how we, as Members, should be behaving, both in the Chamber and online?
Mr Speaker
We will never discuss Members’ security on the Floor of the House. If there are issues, Members should please come to see me privately. Let me see what I can do to reassure Members, but I certainly do not want to open a debate, because I do not think that that would add to Members’ safety. Please come and see me privately.
Bill presented
Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Peter Dowd, supported by Patrick Hurley, Kim Johnson, David Baines, Ian Byrne, Derek Twigg and Paula Barker presented a Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24 hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 264).
Registration of Births (Inclusion of Deceased Parents)
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move, First day New clauses and new Schedules standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown; amendments to clauses 1 to 165 and Schedules 1 to 18, other than amendments relating to abortion. Three hours before the moment of interruption on the first day. New clauses and new Schedules relating to abortion; amendments relating to abortion. The moment of interruption on the first day. Second day Remaining new clauses and new Schedules; amendments to clauses 166 to 172, other than amendments relating to abortion; remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the inclusion of a parent’s details on a child’s birth certificate where that parent has died before the birth of the child; and for connected purposes.
For the vast majority of parents, registering the birth of their child is a straightforward process. It is a simple piece of paperwork that marks a special moment and brings important recognition of their new family, along with notable legal rights. Yet, for a number of women every year, what should be an uncontroversial step in their journey as a parent becomes a protracted and traumatic legal battle.
The law dictates that it is the duty of the parents to register the birth of a child within 42 days. For married couples, there is a presumption of paternity for the husband under the law. That means either parent may register the birth unaccompanied by the other, with both still recorded on the birth certificate. Therefore, in the terrible event that their husband dies before the child is born, a widowed mother can still ensure their name is on the birth certificate, which is common sense.
However, if the couple are unmarried, the law does not recognise their relationship in the same way. The fact that the mother does not have a ring on her finger means there is no automatic recognition of paternity. If an unmarried woman experiences the unimaginable tragedy of losing her partner during pregnancy, there is no provision for her to register them on the child’s birth certificate. Unless both parents can be present, the registrar is deemed unable to verify the paternity of the father. While suffering the grief of losing a loved one and facing the new reality of parenthood alone, bereaved mothers leave the register office with a blank space on their child’s birth certificate, instead of their partner’s name.
In order to amend the birth certificate, bereaved mothers have to seek a declaration of parentage through a lengthy, costly and traumatising legal process in the family courts. In some respects, this is a legal loophole—the effect of improper and outdated legislation that has failed to provide for a certain set of particularly tragic circumstances—but it speaks to a deeper inequality in the legal system: unmarried couples are held in lower regard. The law in this area has not kept pace with societal change.
The charity Widowed and Young first brought this injustice to my attention. It is an organisation that provides fantastic support to those who have experienced widowhood earlier in life. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) who secured an Adjournment debate on this issue, and spoke powerfully and movingly of her own experience of bereavement, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who first exposed the shortcomings of the legal process in Parliament in 2016.
The Bill seeks to legislate for Widowed and Young’s “Blank Space” campaign to come into existence, to provide a clear and simple process for unmarried and bereaved mothers to register their partner on their child’s birth certificate. Through the charity, I have heard the stories of brave and inspiring women, some of whom are in the Gallery today to watch the proceedings. I would like to share their experiences, which illustrate the emotional impact of this issue.
When Kelly’s partner, Jordan, died suddenly in 2020, she went from planning their future to planning her fiancé’s funeral. Shortly after she gave birth to their daughter, Kelly’s battle began to prove that Jordan was the father. As Kelly said, he had wanted
“nothing more out of his life than to have kids”,
so she was determined that his name would be on Maisie’s birth certificate.
Kelly used a C63 form to apply for a declaration of parentage through the family courts, which comes with an immediate cost of £365. While having to provide DNA from Jordan’s mother and paying out hundreds of pounds in legal fees, Kelly was also asked demeaning questions, such as whether she had had any other partners. After fighting for two years, Kelly received a birth certificate for her daughter Maisie with Jordan’s name on it. She now keeps 12 copies of it around the house and one in her purse at all times.
Orlanda and her partner Julian were on holiday when he unexpectedly collapsed. Just a day after discovering they were expecting a baby girl, Julian died from a heart attack. When the registrar told Orlanda that Julian would not be named on her daughter’s birth certificate, she said it felt as if he had been “ripped from our history”. Her process through the courts took two years and four hearings. Many of the judges she encountered had never even come across a situation like hers, and she was often asked at hearings if Julian would be attending. As an ambassador for Widowed and Young, Orlanda says she is determined to make things easier for women who follow in her path.
Let me turn to Sophie, who is still in the midst of this torturous process. The sudden death of her partner Lawrence while she was pregnant with their daughter Kinley turned her world upside down. Despite their having two children together, and Lawrence being legally registered as the father of both, Sophie was told that Lawrence would not be registered as Kinley’s father. She was devastated. Registering their son together in 2016 was one of Lawrence’s proudest moments. As Sophie said,
“he will always be her dad”,
and he should be recognised as such.
Sophie entered the uphill battle of amending the birth certificate, and was bounced between Departments and advisers until someone at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service intervened on her behalf. Her hearing is at the magistrates court on 3 July and will hopefully bring her some closure on this issue. Sophie said the experience has been
“exhausting, confusing and emotionally draining.”
I add my personal thanks to the women who join us today for sharing their brave stories, and for allowing me to share them with the House.
Kelly, Orlanda and Sophie’s stories show how traumatic and unnecessarily complex the process is. Widowed and Young estimates that this issue affects as many as 200 women each year. While the women who join us today have persevered through the family courts, many mothers will give up out of frustration, leaving that blank space on their child’s birth certificate.
The system for registering births is governed by section 10 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, which make provision for those requiring a declaration of parentage. Neither of those Acts provide for the specific circumstances in which one parent is deceased and a child is born outside of marriage. A declaration of parentage is not intended to prove the paternity of a deceased partner, but rather to resolve disputed parenthood. This legal framework is unfit for purpose. When the Births and Deaths Registration Act became law in 1953, 95% of births registered in the UK were within a marriage. That figure has reduced steadily ever since, and only half of children are now born within marriage. Times have changed and society has moved on, yet the law has not kept pace.
This Bill would drag the legislation into the 21st century, and provide a clear and simple process for registering a deceased partner’s name on a birth certificate. We can achieve that by placing greater reliance on a registrar’s professional judgement. With the right evidence, registrars are allowed to amend a birth certificate, so we can similarly empower them to correct the absence of a deceased parent, provided that they receive sufficient evidence of intended parenthood.
Across Europe—in Switzerland, France and Germany—unmarried parents are encouraged to register their parentage at antenatal appointments. A similar system could be created here, and a declaration of intended parentage could be made during pregnancy. I do not contest the importance of having a rigorous process for proving intended parenthood, but that importance is an argument in support of a change in the law, not against it, because that process is currently non-existent. Officials are often unable to advise women on how to register their deceased partner as a parent, because there is no guidance. While there remains no clear route to proving intended parenthood, bereaved unmarried mothers are being denied a basic right.
The anachronistic legal framework is causing immense trauma for mothers and children. This Bill would take direct action to address that injustice, providing a clear process for bereaved mothers to follow, and allowing the registrar to include a deceased partner on their child’s birth certificate. That small change in the law would make a huge difference. It would spare grieving women a needlessly painful legal process, and ensure that no mother or child has a blank space on their birth certificate where their parent’s name should rightly be.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Stella Creasy, Caroline Voaden, Alice Macdonald, John Grady, Chris Vince, Abtisam Mohamed, Kirith Entwistle, Dr Marie Tidball, David Burton-Sampson, Daniel Francis, Charlotte Nichols and Jen Craft present the Bill.
Jen Craft accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 263).
Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(9)),
That the Order of 10 March 2025 (Crime and Policing Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 89 / Noes: 428 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 379 / Noes: 137 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 117 / Noes: 379 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 53—Arranging or facilitating begging for gain.
Government new clause 54—Proving an offence under section 38.
Government new clause 55—Special measures for witnesses.
Government new clause 56—Causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose.
Government new clause 57—Secretary of State guidance.
Government new clause 58—Department of Justice guidance.
Government new clause 59—Removal of limitation period in child sexual abuse cases.
Government new clause 60—Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers.
Government new clause 61—Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers.
Government new clause 62—Interpretation of sections (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour towards emergency workers) and (Threatening or abusive behaviour likely to harass, alarm or distress emergency workers).
Government new clause 63—Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices.
Government new clause 64—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): supplementary.
Government new clause 65—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): interpretation.
Government new clause 66—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): confidential information.
Government new clause 67—Section (Extraction of online information following seizure of electronic devices): code of practice.
Government new clause 68—Extraction of online information: ports and border security.
Government new clause 69—Extraction of online information following agreement etc.
Government new clause 70—Lawful interception of communications.
Government new clause 71—Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons.
Government new clause 72—Meaning of “law enforcement employer”.
Government new clause 73—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to Secretary of State.
Government new clause 74—Application of section (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred person) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 75—Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists.
Government new clause 76—Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer.
Government new clause 77—Interpretation of sections (Law enforcement employers may not employ etc barred persons) to (Application of section (Duty of law enforcement employers to check advisory lists) to specified law enforcement employer).
Government new clause 78—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Government new clause 79—Consequential amendments.
Government new clause 80—Power to give directions to critical police undertakings.
Government new clause 81—Ports and border security: retention and copying of articles.
Government new clause 82—Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted.
Government new schedule 1—Amendments to Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Government new schedule 2—Confiscation orders: Scotland.
Government new schedule 3—Special police forces: barred persons lists and advisory lists.
Amendment 157, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “The Anti-social” and insert—
“Subject to a review of existing anti-social behaviour powers under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014 being conducted and completed by the Secretary of State within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Anti-social”.
Amendment 167, page 1, line 13, leave out “18” and insert “16”.
This amendment would lower the age to 16 at which a court can impose a respect order on a person to prevent them from engaging in anti-social behaviour.
Amendment 168, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(9A) If a court makes a respect order against a person (P) more than once, then P is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”
This amendment means that if a person gets more than one Respect Order, they are liable for a fine.
Amendment 169, page 2, line 30, leave out from “behaviour” to end of line 31 and insert
“has the same meaning as under section 2 of this Act.”
This amendment would give “anti-social behaviour” in clause 1 the same definition as in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Amendment 170, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“D1 Power to move person down list for social housing
(1) A respect order may have the effect of moving any application the respondent may have for social housing to the end of the waiting list.”
This amendment would mean that a person who receives a respect order would move to the bottom of the waiting list for social housing, if applicable.
Amendment 171, page 8, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) A person who commits further offences under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).””
This amendment sets out the penalties for repeated breaches of a respect order with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
Amendment 158, in clause 2, page 9, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must conduct a full consultation exercise.”
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 17, line 23, insert—
“(3) To facilitate the ability of the Police, under the provisions of section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by subsection (1), to seize e-scooters or e-bikes that have been used in a manner which has caused alarm, distress or annoyance, the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue a consultation on a registration scheme for the sale of electric bikes and electric scooters.
(4) The consultation must consider the merits of—
(a) requiring sellers to record the details of buyers, and
(b) verifying that buyers have purchased insurance.”
Amendment 172, in clause 9, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(c) section 33B (Section 33 offences: clean-up costs).”
Amendment 173, page 17, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) Guidance issued about the enforcement of section 33 offences must ensure that, where a person is convicted of a relevant offence, they are liable for the costs incurred through loss or damage resulting from the offence.”
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State’s guidance on fly-tipping makes the person responsible for fly-tipping, rather than the landowner, liable for the costs of cleaning up.
Amendment 174, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) The consultation undertaken by the Secretary of State must include an examination of establishing a penalty point fine to those found convicted of an offence under sections 33 or 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on establishing a system for those who fly tip or leave litter to receive penalty points on their driving licence.
Amendment 175, in clause 25, page 30, line 24, leave out “4” and insert “14”.
This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four to 14 years. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation recommended an increase in his review following the Southport attack.
Government amendments 24 to 33.
Amendment 176, in clause 35, page 50, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) If the offender has previous convictions for an offence under section 14 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (assault of a retail worker) or for shoplifting under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, the court must make a community order against the offender. The community order must include a tag, a ban, or a curfew.”
This amendment clause would require the courts to make a community order against repeat offenders of retail crime in order to restrict the offender’s liberty.
Government amendment 34.
Amendment 4, in clause 38, page 51, line 29, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Amendment 7, page 51, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the requirement that for an offence of child criminal exploitation to be committed, the perpetrator did not reasonably believe that the child was aged 18 or over.
Government amendment 35.
Amendment 5, in clause 38, page 51, line 37, leave out “criminal conduct” and insert “conduct for criminal purposes”.
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes. It is consequential on Amendment 4.
Amendment 6, page 52, line 2, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) activity that is undertaken in order to facilitate or enable an offence under the law of England and Wales, or.”
This amendment would expand the remit of the offence created under clause 38 to include exploiting a child into conduct for criminal purposes.
Government amendments 36 to 49.
Amendment 8, in clause 53, page 61, line 5, after “(A)” insert ““aged 18 or over”.
This amendment would ensure children cannot commit an offence of cuckooing.
Government amendments 50 to 66.
Government motion to transfer subsection (4) of clause 59.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 177, in clause 64, page 73, line 24, at end insert—
“4A) For the purpose of this section—
“Child” means a person under the age of 18.
“Grooming” means meeting or communicating (in person or online) with a child and or their network (on one or more occasion) with a view to intentionally arrange or facilitate child sexual abuse (in person or online) for an act including themselves or others.”
This amendment would introduce a legal definition of grooming.
Amendment 178, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
“70B Group-based sexual grooming of a child
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a court is considering the seriousness of a specified child sex offences,
(b) the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming, and
(c) the offender was aged 18 or over when the offence was committed.
(2) The court—
(a) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by group-based grooming as an aggravated factor, and
(b) must state in court that the offence is so aggravated.
(3) An offence is “aggravated by group-based grooming” if—
(a) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, the offender, who was involved in group-based grooming, or
(b) the offence was facilitated by, or involved, a person other than the offender grooming a person under the age of 18 and the offender knew, or could have reasonably been expected to know that said person was participating, or facilitating group-based grooming, or
(c) the offender intentionally arranges or facilitates something that the offender intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in order to participate in group-based grooming.
(4) In this section “specified child sex offence” means—
(a) an offence within any of subsections (5) to (7), or
(b) an inchoate offence in relation to any such offence.
(5) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking etc indecent photograph of child),
(b) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photograph of child),
(c) an offence under any of sections 5 to 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape and other offences against children under 13),
(d) an offence under any sections 9 to 12 of that Act (other child 25 sex offences),
(e) an offence under section 14 of that Act (arranging or facilitating commission of child sex offence),
(f) an offence under any of sections 16 to 19 of that Act (abuse of position of trust),
(g) an offence under section 25 or 26 of that Act (familial child sex offences), or
(h) an offence under any of sections 47 to 50 of that Act (sexual exploitation of children).
(6) An offence is within this subsection if it is—
(a) an offence under any of sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape, assault and causing sexual activity without consent),
(b) an offence under any of sections 30 to 41 of that Act (sexual offences relating to persons with mental disorder),
(c) an offence under any of sections 61 to 63 of that Act (preparatory offences), or
(d) an offence under any of sections 66 to 67A of that Act (exposure and voyeurism), and the victim or intended victim was under the age of 18.
(7) An offence is within this subsection if it is an offence under section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in a public lavatory) and a person involved in the activity in question was under the age of 18.
(8) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “group-based grooming” is defined as a group of at least three adults whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims who are under 18, or could reasonably be expected to be under 18.”
This amendment would introduce a specific aggravating factor in sentencing for those who participate in, or facilitate, group-based sexual offending.
Amendment 159, in clause 65, page 74, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) An officer may seek independent judicial authorisation to engage in conduct which is for the purpose of obtaining data from the person.
(2A) Authorised conduct may consist of an officer—
(a) scanning the information stored on the device using technology approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of ascertaining whether information stored on an electronic device includes child sexual abuse images,
(b) requiring the person to permit the scan, and
(c) requiring the person to take such steps as appear necessary to allow the scan to be performed.”
This amendment subjects any searches of electronic devices to prior authorisation by a judge.
Amendment 179, in clause 66, page 75, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment would keep an individual under the duty to report child abuse despite the belief that someone else may have reported the abuse to the relevant authority.
Amendment 3, page 75, line 31, at end insert—
“(2) the duty under subsection (1) applies to—
(a) any person undertaking work for the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination on either a paid or voluntary basis,
(b) any clergy of the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian denomination, notwithstanding any canonical law regarding the seal of confession, and
(c) any person undertaking work on either a paid or voluntary basis, or holding a leadership position, within the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Sikh faiths, or any other religion, faith or belief system.”
This amendment would ensure that the duty to report suspected child sex abuse covered everyone working for the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church whether paid or on a voluntary basis, including clergy, as well as all other faith groups. Reports received by clergy through confession would not be exempt from the duty to report.
Amendment 10, page 76, line 28, at end insert—
“(10) A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(11) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that a failure to report a suspected child sex offence should be a criminal offence.
Amendment 22, page 77, line 13, at end insert
“or
(c) an activity involving a “position of trust” as defined in sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that any person working in a position of trust as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, should be designated a mandatory reporter.
Amendment 11, in clause 68, page 78, line 19, at end insert—
“(7) The sixth case is where P witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse, such as pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease, to an extent that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed.
(8) The seventh case is where P witnesses a person (A) behaving in the presence of a child in a way that would cause a reasonable person who engages in the same relevant activity as P to suspect that A may have committed a child sex offence.
(9) A failure to comply with the duty under subsection (1) is not an offence where the reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed arises from subsection (7) or subsection (8).”
This amendment would implement part of recommendation 13 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse that there should be a duty to report where a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse. Failure to report in these instances would not attract a criminal sanction.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 9, in clause 80, page 84, line 22, at end insert—
“(b) if the name change is by deed poll, 7 days prior to submitting an application for change of name (whichever is earlier), or”.
This amendment would require relevant sex offenders to notify the police of an intention to change a name 7 days before making an application to do so by deed poll.
Amendment 180, page 85, line 26, at end insert—
“(11) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they change their name.
Amendment 181, in clause 81, page 86, line 41, at end insert—
“(10) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes a fine of up to £2,500 if a registered sex offender does not notify the police when they are absent from their sole or main residence.
Amendment 182, in clause 82, page 88, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) If a relevant offender does not comply with the requirements of this section, they shall be liable to a fine at Level 5 of the standard scale.”
This amendment imposes an unlimited fine if a relevant registered sex offender does not notify police if they are entering a premises where children are presented.
Government amendments 71 to 73.
Amendment 19, in clause 94, page 115, line 25, at end insert
“, or
(c) the person does so being reckless as to whether another person will be injured, aggrieved or annoyed.”
This amendment would expand the offence for administering harmful substances, including by spiking, to include those who do so being reckless.
Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 116, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) In determining a sentence for an offence committed under this section, the Court is to treat encouragement or assistance of self-harm, when preceded by a history of abuse perpetrated against the victim/other person by D, as an aggravating factor.
(6B) The criminal liability for D, when the other person mentioned in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) commits suicide, and where D has subjected that person to physical, psychiatric or psychological harm, is the offence of murder.”
This amendment treats encouragement or assistance of serious self-harm when preceded by a history of abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing with explicit recognition of murder as the criminal liability for perpetrators who cause serious physical, psychiatric, or psychological harm that directly results in, or significantly contributes to, suicide.
Government amendments 74 to 76.
Amendment 14, in clause 102, page 124, line 16, leave out from subsection (1) to “where” in line 29 and insert—
“(1) A person who possesses a SIM farm without good reason or lawful authority commits an offence. For the meaning of ‘SIM farm’, see section 104.
(2) In subsection (1) the reference to a good reason for possessing a SIM farm includes in particular possessing it for a purpose connected with—
(a) providing broadcasting services,
(b) operating or maintaining a public transport service,
(c) operating or maintaining an electronic communications network (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003),
(d) tracking freight or monitoring it in any other way, or
(e) providing or supporting an internet access service or the conveyance of signals (as defined by section 32 of the Communications Act 2003).
This subsection does not limit subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1),”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they possessed a SIM farm without a good reason, such as for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority.
Amendment 15, in clause 103, page 124, line 37, leave out from subsection (1) to “prove” on page 125, line 2, and insert—
“(1) A person who supplies a SIM farm to another person commits an offence unless subsection (2) applies.
(2) It is not an offence for a person to supply a SIM farm under this section provided the person (‘the supplier’) can”.
This amendment would mean that a person would only commit an offence if they supplied a SIM farm without taking reasonable steps to confirm that the person receiving the SIM farm would have a good reason, including for broadcasting purposes, or lawful authority to possess the SIM farm.
Amendment 16, in clause 104, page 125, line 34, after “interchangeably,” insert “and designed primarily” and line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a device is not a SIM farm if it uses five or more SIM cards simultaneously or interchangeably for the purposes of provided data only services or internet access services or conveyance services.”
This amendment would amend the meaning of “SIM farm” to cover only devices that are primarily used for calls and text messages and would exclude devices primarily used for data connectivity such as Bonded Cellular Devices used by broadcasters.
Amendment 164, page 128, line 5, leave out clause 108.
Amendment 184, in clause 108, page 128, line 10, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
“(2) No offence is committed under this section where a person wears or otherwise uses the item for—”
This amendment would ensure that Clause 108 does not apply to people wearing the hijab, niqab or wearing a mask for health reasons.
Amendment 185, page 128, line 25, at end insert—
“(6) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the provisions of Clause 108.
Amendment 165, page 128, line 26, leave out clause 109.
Amendment 166, page 129, line 28, leave out clause 110.
Government amendments 77 to 86.
Amendment 161, page 131, line 29, leave out clause 114.
This amendment would delete Clause 114 which would place restrictions on the right to protest near places of worship.
Amendment 160, in clause 115, page 133, line 12, at end insert—
“(4) Prior to imposing conditions under either Section 12 or 14, the senior officer of the Police Force in question must confirm that live facial recognition will not be in use, unless a new code of practice for the use of live facial recognition surveillance in public spaces in England and Wales had previously been presented to, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 21, in clause 120, page 140, line 37, at end insert—
“(8) The authorised persons listed in Clause 71A may not use the information referenced in subsection (1) for the purposes of biometric searches using facial recognition technology”
Government amendment 87.
Amendment 162, page 148, line 1, leave out clause 126.
Amendment 163, in clause 126, page 148, line 13, at end insert—
“(3) Within a year of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the human rights and equality impact of the provisions of this section, and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within a month of its publication.”
Government amendments 88 to 91.
Amendment 183, in clause 141, page 168, line 5, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7A) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7B) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(7C) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(7D) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(7E) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7F) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Government amendments 92 to 101, and 134 to 151.
Amendment 23, in schedule 9, page 229, line 15, at end insert—
“(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for summary offences) does not apply to an offence under subsection (1).”
This amendment allows the offence of taking or recording intimate photograph or film to be tried by a Magistrates’ Court at any time by disapplying the six-month time limit in s.127 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
Government amendments 152 to 156 and 102 to 133.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I speak to the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I quickly remind the House why the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a vital part of our safer streets mission, and contains a host of measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, retail and knife crime, and the epidemic of violence against women and girls, and to restore confidence and trust in policing.
It is worth reminding the House that on the previous Government’s watch, shoplifting soared to record-high levels; there was a 70% increase in their last two years in office alone. Street theft was rapidly rising; it was up by almost 60% in just the last two years. Antisocial behaviour was rampant in our towns and cities, with 1 million incidents last year. In the year to June 2024, the crime survey of England and Wales estimated that 25% of people perceived antisocial behaviour to be a fairly or very big problem in their area. That is the highest level since at least March 2013, over a decade ago. Violence and abuse against shop workers was at epidemic levels. The British Retail Consortium said that incidents of violence and abuse against shop workers stood at more than 2,000 a day in ’23-24—up by almost 50% on the previous year, and nearly treble the pre-pandemic figures from 2019 to 2020.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I have been down to the local Co-op in Chesterfield and met one of the shop workers, who faced a terrible attack. Luckily, the people were jailed, but in so many cases there is a sense that shoplifters are able to walk out the door without anything being done. The traumatic effect that this has on shop workers has to be seen to be believed. Would the Minister say that the message the Bill sends to anyone who wants to walk out of a store after doing these things is that the police will come after them, and they will end up going to jail?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend puts that very well. Attacks on retail workers are totally unacceptable. The Co-op and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have done important work to highlight this issue and ensure that measures on it will be enacted through the Bill.
The previous Conservative Government wrote off a number of the crime types I have just talked about as low-level crime, and allowed them to spiral out of control. At the same time, they decimated local neighbourhood policing teams, causing untold damage to our communities, as we all know.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On neighbourhood policing, I welcome the fact that we have some extra capacity coming into the west midlands, but I have not yet had clarification on whether the money that is coming to the west midlands will cover all the extra national insurance costs. The Labour police and crime commissioner is already saying that his budgets are underfunded under the Labour Government.
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Lady and I have had this discussion before, and I have made it very clear that the national insurance increases have been funded through the money that is available to police forces this year. That is in stark contrast to the situation under the previous Government, who did not make a proper allocation for the police pay award for last year. This Government had to supplement it when we came into power in July.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister join me in celebrating the five new neighbourhood police officers we have in Harlow? I cannot take all the credit for them, because I only taught one of them maths.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. I think we will have 3,000 additional neighbourhood police officers by the end of March next year, as part of our commitment to putting in place 13,000 neighbourhood police officers by the end of this Parliament.
It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it commands broad support across the House. I hope that over the next two days, right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House can come together and recognise the shared goals that the Bill fulfils. The Government are tireless in our drive to make our streets safer.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is setting out very clearly what the Bill is intended to be, and has rightly pointed to the cross-party support for the main thrust of it. Does she agree that that unanimity of purpose is put in grave jeopardy by the Christmas tree-ing of significant amendments relating to abortion? I know that she had a personal interest in this issue in opposition. These very dramatic changes to abortion law require a much fuller debate in this place than can be had on an amendment to a Bill that has the purpose that the right hon. Lady has set out. The Government never intended the Bill to be a Christmas tree Bill, but it has become one. The House runs the risk of fracturing its unanimity of purpose if those amendments are pressed to a vote and become part of the legislation.
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not want to try Mr Speaker’s patience, but time has been allocated for that debate this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House, and he will know that crime Bills often become Christmas tree Bills due to their very nature, as Members wish to table amendments on all sorts of areas of the criminal law. We have the Bill that is before us, and the amendments that have been tabled.
The Government and, I hope, other parties in this House are committed to making our streets safer. Where there are gaps in the law, we will not hesitate to address them, and the Government amendments that have been tabled are very much directed to our achieving that end. I will start by going through them. New clause 54 will aid legal certainty and the consistent application of the new offence of child criminal exploitation. The new clause makes clearer to the courts that the offence is focused on the criminal intentions of the adult only, rather than those of the child. It puts beyond doubt that the offence captures circumstances in which the child is used as an entirely innocent agent and cannot satisfy all the elements of the intended criminal conduct themselves. The new clause also puts beyond doubt that the offence is capable of capturing earlier-stage grooming; as such, it addresses the concerns raised in amendments 4 to 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). It will also cover perpetrators who arrange for another person to exploit a child on their behalf. At the request of the Scottish Government and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, we are also extending the offence of child criminal exploitation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 56 criminalises the highly exploitative and harmful practice of coerced internal concealment. It is commonly associated with county lines drug dealing, and involves a child or adult being intentionally caused to conceal drugs or other objects—such as weapons or SIM cards—inside their body to facilitate criminality. The new clause creates two new offences. The first targets perpetrators who intentionally cause a child to conceal a specified item inside their body. The second applies in cases where an adult victim is caused to internally conceal a specified item through compulsion, coercion or deception, or through controlling or manipulative behaviour, and where the perpetrator intends, knows or reasonably suspects that the item has been or may be used in connection with criminal conduct. These new offences will carry a maximum penalty of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Bill applies to England and Wales, but it is important for knowledge and information to be shared with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, for example, so that they are aware of what is happening here—and people may move from England or Wales to Northern Ireland or Scotland. We should ensure that information can be exchanged between police forces and other authorities here and those in the devolved Administrations: if we want security and safety for all our people, that really needs to happen.
Dame Diana Johnson
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of sharing information, good practice and policy development, and I hope that that will go from strength to strength under this Government.
Let me now say something about abusive behaviour towards emergency workers. As we all know, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect us every day, and they deserve robust protection in return. That includes protection from racial and religious abuse, which is not only deeply harmful but undermines the values of decency, respect and public service. Unlike most people, emergency workers cannot walk away from abuse. When they enter private homes they do so not by choice, but because it is their duty to do so. Whether they are responding to a 999 call, providing urgent medical care or attending an incident involving risk to life or property, they are legally and professionally required to remain and act. They cannot remove themselves from the situation simply because they are being abused. The law must recognise that and ensure that they are properly protected in every setting, including private dwellings.
At present, there is a clear and pressing gap in the law. Although existing legislation provides important protections against racially and religiously aggravated offences in public places, they do not extend to abuse that occurs inside private homes. Policing stakeholders have highlighted that gap, and have emphasised the need for stronger safeguards for emergency workers. New clauses 60 to 62 therefore introduce specific offences relating to the use of racially or religiously threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards emergency workers acting in the course of their duties. Crucially, that includes incidents that take place within a private dwelling.
This is a focused and proportionate measure. It does not interfere with freedom of expression; rather, it reinforces the principle that emergency workers should be able to carry out their critical roles without being subjected to hate or hostility because of their race or religion. I hope that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) will agree that these Government new clauses achieve the underlying purpose of her new clause 120.
Clause 112 strengthens the protection afforded to nationally significant war memorials by providing for a new offence of climbing on specified war memorials without lawful excuse. We believe that the same protection should now be extended to other nationally significant memorials, starting with the statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The Churchill statue, which is a prominent national symbol of Britain’s wartime leadership, has repeatedly been targeted and climbed on during protests in recent years. Including it within the new offence ensures the consistent protection of one of the foremost culturally significant monuments linked to national remembrance. Amendments 77 to 84 therefore expand the scope of the new offence to include other memorials of national significance, as well as adding the statue of Sir Winston Churchill to the list of specified memorials set out in schedule 12.
New clauses 63 to 70 and 81 and new schedule 1 deal with remotely stored electronic data, clarifying powers for law enforcement agencies to access information stored online and extract evidence or intelligence for criminal investigations, to protect the public from the risk of terrorism and safeguard our national security. The powers will apply when law enforcement agencies have lawfully seized an electronic device, as part of national security examination at UK borders or when a person provides his or her agreement. New clause 70 also amends the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to permit the interception of access-related communications, such as two-factor authentication codes. Those reforms are necessary to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have clear powers to access vital evidence and intelligence when investigating serious offences, including child sexual abuse, fraud, terrorism and threats to national security, at a time when more and more information is stored remotely in the cloud rather than on people’s electronic devices.
Let me now turn to new clauses 72 to 79 and new schedule 3. A crucial aspect of our safer streets mission is to rebuild public confidence in policing. Among other things, that means ensuring that only those who are fit to serve can hold the office of constable or otherwise work in our law enforcement agencies. As well as strengthening the vetting regime for police officers, the new clauses and the new schedule require the National Crime Agency, the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police to establish barred persons lists and advisory lists, similar to those created in 2017 for territorial police forces in England and Wales The chief officers of these forces, and others, will be under a legal duty to consult the lists before employing or appointing an individual to prevent those dismissed from policing from rejoining another force in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced a new police efficiency and collaboration programme to cut waste and bureaucracy. It is important that undertakings providing services to the police are delivering the most benefit, and unlocking the efficiency savings needed by forces to achieve better outcomes for the public. Announcing the Government’s intention to consult on establishing a new national centre of policing, the Home Secretary said that she envisaged the body’s being responsible for existing shared services, national IT capabilities, and force-hosted national capabilities. It is right that the Home Secretary has the powers to ensure that those capabilities are fully aligned with the priorities of the police efficiency and collaboration programme, and that they are adequately prepared for transition into the new body with no disruption to service delivery. New clause 80 ensures that the Home Secretary has the power to direct undertakings providing critical services and capabilities to policing to take appropriate action to strengthen their service delivery to better deliver our efficiencies programme, and, ahead of any future legislation to establish the national centre for policing, to remove any barriers to the transition of services into the new centre.
We tabled new clauses 52 and 53 against the backdrop of the Government’s commitment to bring into force the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises begging and many forms of rough sleeping. It is generally the case that when begging reaches the threshold of antisocial behaviour there are already sufficient powers available to the police and others to address that, but we have identified two gaps in the law that will arise from the repeal of the 1824 Act, which the new clauses would address. New clause 52 makes it a criminal offence for any person to arrange or facilitate another person’s begging for gain. Organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs, exploits vulnerable individuals and can undermine the public’s sense of safety. This provision makes it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg—for example, by driving people to places for them to beg. That will allow the police to crack down on the organised crime gangs that use this exploitative technique to obtain cash for illicit activity.
Chris Vince
The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. Having worked for a homelessness charity, I have seen this issue at first hand. Does she agree that when there is an organisation behind the begging, the person forced to beg is actually being exploited, so these laws will help to tackle a form of exploitation?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes that point very well. These individuals are exploited by serious and organised criminal gangs, and we are going to clamp down on those gangs’ activity.
New clause 53 re-enacts the offence of being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose. It will make it an offence for a person to trespass on any premises—that covers any building, part of a building or enclosed area—with the intention of committing an offence. Without this replacement offence, the police would be able to rely only on the trespassing provisions in the Theft Act 1968, which covers trespassing only in relation to burglary. It is important that the police have the powers to tackle all cases of trespassing with intent to commit an offence, and new clause 53 will ensure that.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister both on the Bill as it stands and on today’s amendments. Near my constituency, there has been a troubling spate of recent incidents in which younger people, in some cases encouraged by older men, are filming themselves catapulting and injuring wildlife, and placing that footage on TikTok. The footage is deeply unpleasant, and I do not recommend anybody looks at it. Would the Minister agree that that behaviour goes well beyond antisocial behaviour, and may at some point require a ban perhaps on the sale of catapults, but certainly on their use for that purpose?
Dame Diana Johnson
Sadly, that is not the first time I have heard about such appalling behaviour of attacking and injuring animals using catapults. I will certainly be raising that with my counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see what more we can do. I am aware that this issue needs to be looked at, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.
Amendments 24 to 33 will require operators of collection points for items such as knives and crossbows to carry out the same enhanced age verification checks before handing over knives to the buyer, or in the case of crossbows and crossbow parts, to the buyer or even the hirer of the item. Clause 30 imposes similar requirements on couriers.
Clause 128 introduces costs and expenses protections for law enforcement agencies in civil recovery proceedings, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, in the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland. As currently drafted, it is not clear how the cost protection measure applies to pre-existing cases, particularly where cases have started before the provision comes into force but costs are incurred after the provision comes into force. As a result, it may be difficult and costly to determine which costs are covered. Amendment 89 provides that cost protections apply to any case where proceedings start after the measure comes into force.
Schedule 15 to the Bill introduces reforms to the confiscation regime in England and Wales in respect of the proceeds of crime. Among other things, the reforms make provision for the provisional discharge of confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, allowing outstanding confiscation orders to be placed in abeyance when there is no realistic prospect of recovery in the immediate term and all enforcement steps have been exhausted. Amendments to schedule 15 extend the provisional discharge measures to confiscation orders made under legislation predating the 2002 Act.
Chapter 1 of part 14 provides for youth diversion orders, which are a new counter-terrorism risk management tool for young people who, on the balance of probabilities, the court assesses to have committed a terrorism offence or an offence with a terrorism connection, or to have engaged in conduct likely to facilitate a terrorism offence, and where the court considers it necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorism or serious harm.
The amendments to clause 139 make a change to the scope of YDOs to ensure that applications can be made for individuals up to and including 21-year-olds. Currently, a court may make a YDO in respect of a person aged 10 to 21, but exclusive of 21-year-olds. Following further engagement with operational partners on the types of cases that could benefit from a YDO, we have concluded that this change would increase the operational utility of the YDO and ensure that it can be considered as an intervention in a wider variety of cases involving young people.
Clause 141(2) enables a YDO to include prohibitions or requirements relating to the respondent’s possession or use of electronic devices. The amendments to this clause set out a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common or intrusive requirements that may be imposed to support the police’s ability to monitor compliance with restrictions on electronic devices, providing a clearer statutory footing for imposing such requirements. For example, it would allow the court to impose a requirement on someone subject to a YDO to enable the police to access their device for the purposes of checking compliance with restrictions such as accessing specific websites or applications. It would allow the police to identify harmful online activity at an earlier stage and intervene before it escalates. As with other YDO measures, the court would need to assess that any monitoring requirements are necessary and proportionate for the purposes of protecting the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm.
Technical amendments are also required to clauses 142 and 150 relating respectively to the definition of “police detention” for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to the appeals process in Northern Ireland. The amendments will adapt the relevant provisions for the purposes of the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendments to clause 151 provide that, where a person ceases to have a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with notification requirements but continues to fail to comply, they commit an offence.
The other Government amendments in this group, which make necessary refinements to existing provisions in the Bill, were detailed in the letter that I sent last week to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will therefore seek to respond to the non-Government amendments in this group when winding up. For now, I commend the Government amendments to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I would like to express my appreciation to all those who have worked on the legislation to develop and shape the policies, whether they be the majority developed under the previous Conservative Government or members of the Bill team, who I am sure have provided helpful assistance to Ministers. As I am sure we will hear today, some of the measures in the Bill are the result of amazing people who have suffered the worst experiences, but who have worked to ensure that others do not have to suffer them in future.
In addition, considering the context of the legislation, it is right to pay tribute to the excellent work of police officers across the country. Week in, week out, those serving in our police forces put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe. Those who serve and place themselves in danger cannot be thanked enough. Many people ask themselves whether they would have the bravery to stand up and intervene. Officers across the country do so on a daily basis. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Conservative Government, the police force numbered over 149,000 officers in 2024, with 149,769 recorded in March 2024. This was the highest number of officers, on both full-time equivalent and headcount basis, since comparable records began in March 2003.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out those policing numbers. Does he share my concern about the additional police officers we are getting? When I look at our figures for the west midlands, the boost is coming from deployments. I worry about where they are actually coming from and just how much of an increase we are really going to see.
Matt Vickers
I wholeheartedly agree. There are a lot of concerns about the neighbourhood policing guarantee and where the resource comes from: whether it is through specials or volunteers—of course, we want to see more of them—or redeployments. When people ring 999, they want to know that they are going to get the response they expected. They do not want to see that depleted to move officers from one bucket to the next. That has real consequences. The biggest hit to our police force numbers at the moment will be the national insurance rise—the tax that is taxing police off our streets.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister and I probably disagree on many things, but he is giving a very well-presented speech. Does he not recognise, however, that there may well be an increase in police numbers, but we have seen a decrease in police staff? In Essex, we lost over 400 police staff during the Conservatives’ period in office and a number of police officers have been redeployed to roles that could have been done by police staff.
Matt Vickers
I am glad to see all those police officers getting proper training through the hon. Gentleman’s maths teaching. I am glad he has new recruits in his part of the world, but people are concerned about the frontline numbers. The number of police on our streets is a huge concern to the public. The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that the funding will not match the Government’s ambitions and falls short of maintaining the existing workforce. And just listen to the Police Federation, which states quite simply:
“This Chancellor hasn’t listened to police officers.”
Can the Minister confirm that by the end of this Parliament there will be more police officers than were serving in March 2024?
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The shadow Minister will know from our time in Committee that I am an ex-police officer, and I thank him for his words about police officers serving the country. Does he agree that the Bill will give the police more confidence that they will have the right powers, so that they are able to make a difference?
Matt Vickers
I welcome lots of the measures in the Bill and I hope they will really help our police officers to keep our streets safe, but the police need the resource, funding and support to be out there enforcing the legislation we are putting forward today. I thank the hon. Member for his service—on the Committee as well as in the police force.
The House will debate a number of amendments and new clauses today and tomorrow. The Opposition amendments are sensible and aim to improve the Bill, which our constituents would want us to get behind. Amendment 175 relates to the Government’s objective, which we all want to achieve, of reducing knife crime by 50%. We know the untold damage knife crime causes to victims, families and communities across the country. This legislation introduces a new offence: possession of an article with a blade or point, or an offensive weapon, with the intent to use unlawful violence.
Let me put that in context. Imagine you are at home in your garden enjoying a nice peaceful afternoon with the kids. Suddenly, our hard-working police officers swoop in on a man walking down the street—a man carrying a knife or offensive weapon who is then proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have planned to use it for violence. He could have been coming for your neighbours, your friends or your family. This is a man who clearly needs to be locked up. Would you want to see him put away for four years or 14 years? In fact, with the sentencing review, whatever he is sentenced to, he is likely to serve significantly less. Who knows how much of that four years he would serve before he could walk back down your street?
Wendy Morton
According to Keep Britain Tidy, littering and fly-tipping cost the country £1 million a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is money that could go to frontline services, so it is about time we took more stringent measures to change behaviour, along with some good enforcement?
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. A small minority wreak havoc on our countryside and our streets, and create absolute chaos. That is what this amendment is about: tougher sanctions to divert people from doing such mindless things.
The money wasted every year on cleaning up would be better spent on frontline services, such as filling potholes or providing community services. Instead, it is used to clean up after those who have no respect for others or for our natural environment. The most common location for fly-tipping is on pavements and roads, which accounted for 37% of all incidents in 2023-24. The majority—59%—involved small van-sized dumps, or an amount of waste that could easily fit in a car boot. It is therefore logical to conclude that a significant majority of fly-tipping incidents stem from vehicles. Using a vehicle to dump a van full or a boot full of waste should come with real consequences, and the people who do it should feel that in their ability to use their vehicle, as well as through financial penalties. The previous Government increased fines for fly-tipping from £400 to £1,000, but we can go further to deter people from dumping on the doorsteps of others. The amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult on the establishment of a scheme of driving licence penalty points for fly-tippers and those who toss rubbish from vehicles.
In Committee, the Minister pledged to engage with DEFRA on this issue. By passing this amendment, we could go further by committing to undertake a consultation to develop a workable and effective scheme. For the benefit of all those who want to be able to enjoy their green spaces, and for our environment and the wildlife that suffers at the hands of fly-tippers and those who toss waste, I urge Members to support the amendment. Let us send a message to the mindless minority who wreak havoc on our green spaces.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments 167, 168, 170 and 171, which, among other Conservative proposals, aim to strengthen respect orders. We have heard the Minister speak both in Committee and in the Chamber of the role these orders can play in tackling antisocial behaviour. The success of the policy will be contingent on its effective enforcement by the police, and on perpetrators being aware that they will face tough sanctions if they breach the orders. I hope the Government will continue to consider these amendments.
I draw Members’ attention to these amendments as they are indicative of the constructive approach Conservative Members have taken towards improving the Bill in ways that we believe would benefit the legislation as a whole. I hope that Members across the House will give serious consideration to our amendments and new clauses over the coming two days.
The Minister and I have spent more time together than she probably ever envisaged, and I believe we can agree that the Bill contains some sensible and proportionate measures: greater protections for our retail workers, efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, and more measures to tackle vile and horrendous child exploitation. However, we can work together to go further, and that is what our Opposition amendments seek to do.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I begin by once again welcoming the Bill. It will deliver so much for my constituents by protecting people from crime and enabling tough action on antisocial behaviour, including in areas that have too long been labelled “low level” and ignored, such as the illegal off-road bikes that constituents so often raise with me.
The Bill will introduce mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse—one of the key recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, or IICSA. This is a long-overdue measure, which has long been called for by our Labour Home Secretary and Prime Minister personally. However, I remain concerned that the Government are not going far enough on the issue of mandatory reporting. I have therefore tabled three amendments to the Bill on that subject—amendments 10, 11 and 22—on which I will focus my speech today.
Amendments 10, 11 and 22 are not intended to change Government policy—quite the opposite. They are intended to deliver the Government’s stated policy to implement the IICSA recommendations relevant to the Home Office in full. The Home Secretary stated in January that that was the Government’s intention, and reaffirmed that just yesterday, responding with a firm “yes” to my question after her statement on whether it remained Government policy to implement the recommendations in full.
However, there are three significant gaps in our plans to implement recommendation 13 on mandatory reporting, where the Bill does not deliver what IICSA recommended. With these gaps, I am concerned that the duty to report will be ineffective in some of the settings where it is most needed. My concern applies to religious groups in particular. I will use the example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—the religious group I grew up in—to illustrate how and why.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a deep cultural distrust of secular authorities, which, as happens in a lot of religious groups, leads to a culture of dealing with everything internally, including child sexual abuse, and reporting nothing to the police. Their internal processes for doing so are atrocious. Jehovah’s Witnesses have something called the “two witness rule”, which means that no action is taken on any report of wrongdoing unless there are two witnesses to it. There are never two witnesses to child sexual abuse. I give that context to highlight why the mandatory duty to report must be absolutely watertight, as IICSA recommended, to prevent people in the leadership of organisations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses from avoiding it.
I will cover the three gaps in turn. First, there are no criminal sanctions if someone does not comply with the duty. I understand that the Government are proposing professional sanctions, such as a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service and to relevant professional regulators, but that is not set out in the Bill and would apply to only a fraction of people under the duty. It would not, for example, do much in religious settings, where so many of the failings are happening, and where the duty would, if constructed properly, help immensely to protect children.
IICSA was clear that failure to comply should be a criminal offence, and amendment 10 would make that the case. It proposes a fine as the appropriate sanction, which is in line with best practice overseas. Many other countries—France, Australia, parts of Canada and so on—have introduced mandatory reporting, and many have done so with criminal sanctions of this kind. While the Government will likely say that criminal sanctions could have a chilling effect that would stop people going into professions that work with children, the international evidence clearly shows that this does not happen—in the Australian state of Victoria, for instance. Professor Ben Mathews has done extensive research on mandatory reporting laws and their efficacy, which I thoroughly encourage the Minister to ask officials to examine.
The second gap relates to those who come under the duty to report. IICSA recommended that the duty should apply first to anyone working in regulated activities with children under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, and the Bill uses that criterion—tick. However, IICSA also recommended that it should apply to anyone in a position of trust over a child, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which the Bill does not include. Amendment 22 would make it so.
The Bill sets out a list of relevant activities in part 2 of schedule 8, which replicates about 90% of what is in the Sexual Offences Act. However, that missing 10% is critical; for a start, it includes sports coaches and teachers, which schedule 8 does not. Going back to my earlier example, section 22A of the Sexual Offences Act includes a very effective definition of religious leaders. Schedule 8 does include a definition of religious leaders, but requires such people to have “regular unsupervised contact” with children to be subject to the duty. That qualification will allow virtually any religious leader—be they paid clergy or a volunteer elder, like in the Jehovah’s Witnesses—to escape the duty, as very few have regular unsupervised contact with children, despite being in a significant position of power and influence.
I personally know at least one person who was sexually abused as a child in that organisation. When they went to speak to religious leaders about it, in the presence of their parents—not unsupervised—they were advised that going to the police would mean bringing reproach on God’s name. So no report was made, by either the victim or their family, or by those religious elders. That is commonplace.
Under the Bill as drafted, there is no sanction for that. Those elders are not mandated reporters; even if they were, the proposed offence in clause 73 of stopping someone else from making a report—an offence I very much welcome, for the record—applies only to other mandated reporters. If, therefore, someone pressures a victim or their parents not to make a report, that will not be illegal. That offence needs to be broadened, too.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is calling for the Government to consider a broader offence of concealing child sexual abuse, to which I urge the Government to give serious consideration. I will give more detail on that later, if there is time.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making very important points, in particular on the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. One of the methods Jehovah’s Witnesses use to ensure that issues like this do not escape from the organisation is threatening individuals with the act of disfellowshipping—being cut off from all communication with their own family. I wonder whether he will go a little further in recognising that, too.
Sam Carling
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am very pleased that other hon. Members in the House are aware of that issue, which is something I am trying to do some work on separately. It is certainly relevant to what I am discussing. To give the House a little more context on that, through the act of disfellowshipping, when the organisation decides that someone has committed a serious sin, it can essentially tell all their family and friends to cut them off permanently; the same applies if an individual chooses simply to leave the religion. Disfellowshipping is very rarely applied to perpetrators of crimes, and is more often applied to the victims who report them. It is an enormous problem that has to be dealt with, and I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member further on that.
As I highlighted on Second Reading, the Australian royal commission that investigated the organisation’s handling of abuse cases found that while allegations had been documented by religious elders against 1,006 individuals in Australia alone, not a single one was reported to the police. We must tighten up this definition and ensure that it includes religious leaders. The Government could do so by amending the definition in paragraph 17 of part 2 of schedule 8, and by adding a further item to the list in relation to sports professionals to deal with that point as well. However, the much neater and stronger legislative solution would be to just do what IICSA said, and refer to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the definition therein, which amendment 22 seeks to do.
The third problem relates to what triggers the duty to report. IICSA recommended that the duty should apply in three cases: first, when a mandated reporter is told by a child or perpetrator that abuse has taken place; secondly, when they see it happening; and thirdly, when they observe recognised indicators of child sexual abuse, which can range from things like a child being pregnant or having a sexually transmitted infection to other, more subjective indicators. Our Bill scores two out of three, as it does not include the third point on recognised indicators, which are also referred to as reasonable suspicion.
Overwhelmingly, children do not report abuse that is being done to them at the time that the abuse is happening. Those who do report tend to do so years after it happens, when it is far too late to protect them and far too late, in many cases, to catch the perpetrator and stop them harming other children.
The Australian royal commission in 2015 found that the average time for someone to disclose child sexual abuse was 22 years after it happened, so including reasonable suspicion is critical, and that is what my amendment 11 would do. Given the potentially subjective judgments needed in that case, amendment 11 would exempt the case of recognised indicators from criminal sanctions for non-compliance, which is also what IICSA recommended.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 160, which stands in my name, and briefly in favour of amendments 157 and 158, also in my name.
I wish to start by thanking all those who have campaigned over many years for some of the sensible changes to the Bill that we are discussing today. I also want to put on record my thanks to our fantastic police forces, including Greater Manchester Police, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for their assiduous work on the Bill Committee.
Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses.
Regulations around the use of live facial recognition have been discussed many times in this House, and support for strengthening the current situation, bringing clarity and certainty to police forces, has gained support from all parts of the House, both in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall. I hope this amendment does the same today.
The Liberal Democrats oppose the police’s use of facial recognition surveillance. It breaches the right to privacy and is far too often biased, particularly given its propensity to wrongly identify people of colour and women. In our manifesto last year, we committed immediately to halting the use of live facial recognition surveillance by the police and private companies.
When data or technology, such as artificial intelligence, are used by the police, they must be regulated to ensure that they are unbiased. They must be used in a way that is transparent and accurate and that respects the privacy of innocent people. Policing should not intrude on this right for people who are not suspected of any crime.
On the question of bias, much of the recent debate has centred around the National Physical Laboratory’s 2023 study into the equitability of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. This report is frequently cited by proponents of facial recognition, including the shadow Home Secretary, both at the Dispatch Box, when the Bill came before the House on Second Reading, and during a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last November as evidence that bias in the technology is on the decline.
However, we should not overlook one of that study’s most critical findings. In live facial recognition—where a real-time camera feed is compared against a predetermined watchlist—the likelihood of false positives is not fixed. Instead, it depends heavily on the specific parameters of how that technology is deployed, particularly on the face-match threshold. That threshold, in turn, is influenced by both the size and composition of the watchlist, as well as the volume and nature of the people moving through the surveillance zone.
The study recommends that, where operationally feasible, the police use a face-match threshold of 0.6 in order to reduce the risk of bias. However—and this is crucial—without clear regulation, police forces are under no obligation to adopt this or any specific standard. In other words, the presence of the technology alone does not ensure fairness. Without oversight, significant room remains for bias to persist in how facial recognition is applied. This leads to increased instances of the wrong people being stopped and searched—an area of policing that already disproportionately impacts black communities.
New technologies in policing may well present good opportunities to improve public safety, and police should take advantage of them to prevent and solve crime. However, given that new technologies can raise significant concerns related to civil liberties and discrimination, we must ensure that any new powers involving them are scrutinised by both Houses.
Liberal Democrat amendment 160 would ensure that the police cannot use live facial recognition technology when imposing conditions on public assemblies or processions under sections 12 or 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, unless a new and specific code of practice governing its use in public spaces has first been approved by both Houses. This will ensure democratic oversight of any changes to further legislation that may impact public privacy and civil liberties. I hope that the amendment will have support from across the House.
I have just a few words to say on amendments 157 and 158, which would enable a review of antisocial behaviour powers. Antisocial behaviour, as Members have already mentioned this afternoon, blights communities, erodes trust, frays the social fabric and disproportionately affects the most vulnerable. Many colleagues have raised issues within their own communities, some of which I see in my constituency. We have off-road bikes in Heaviley, Marple, Offerton and High Lane. They are a persistent blight on my community. They intimidate people, endanger public safety and are just really annoying. But we must respond with laws that are not just tough, but fair and proportionate. That is why I urge all colleagues to support amendments 157 and 158, which would ensure that antisocial behaviour laws are reviewed before being changed, and that any new guidance is created with public input.
I also welcome amendment 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which aims to ensure that the duty to report suspected child abuse covers faith groups. I encourage the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) to seek her out as he will find a doughty ally in his attempts to improve the Bill as it impacts on faith groups.
As I said on Second Reading, there are measures in the Bill that the Liberal Democrats support. Were our amendments to be accepted, the Bill would go even further towards keeping our communities safe in a way that is proportionate and that balances the civil liberties implications of giving the police more powers. I hope that the House will support our amendments.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill and to speak to amendment 20, which stands in my name and is supported by more than 50 Members from across the House. The measures in the Bill represent the most significant package of crime prevention and policing reforms in a generation. From strengthening action against shoplifting, knife crime and antisocial behaviour to introducing new powers to confront child sexual abuse, this legislation gives our police the tools they need to take back our high streets and town centres. I am proud to support the Bill, and I am proud that this Labour Government are showing leadership by putting victims first, supporting our police and turning the tide on crime after 14 years of Conservative neglect.
It is in that same spirit of placing victims at the heart of our justice system that I have tabled amendment 20. It addresses an urgent and under-recognised issue: the devastating link between domestic abuse and suicide and the failure of our legal system to properly reflect it. My amendment is supported by Southall Black Sisters—a pioneering black feminist organisation founded in 1979, dedicated to empowering black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, particularly those fleeing violence. For over four decades, Southall Black Sisters has been a trailblazer in advocating for the rights and safety of some of society’s most marginalised women and girls and in addressing barriers rooted in racism, sexism and socioeconomic inequalities. Their mission is to dismantle the structural injustices harming black, minoritised and migrant women and girls, while fostering global solidarity for a future rooted in equity, justice and empowerment. I sincerely thank the dedicated staff at Southall Black Sisters for their help with my amendment.
Too often those who drive their victims to suicide through sustained coercion, violence or psychological abuse walk away without consequence. While the Bill introduces welcome offences on serious self-harm, it still falls short of recognising the full impact faced by victims of domestic abuse, particularly when the abuse ends in suicide.
The statistics should stop us in our tracks. According to the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme, suspected suicides linked to domestic abuse now outnumber domestic homicides. It is estimated that three women die by suicide every week as a result of abuse, yet since 2017 there has been just one conviction where a victim’s suicide was legally recognised as the outcome of domestic abuse—just one. That is not justice; it is a failure to see these women, recognise what they have endured and hold their abusers to account.
Coercive control and psychological torment may leave no bruises, but the impact is every bit as lethal. When domestic abuse ends in suicide, it must be recognised for what it is: a crime. The injustice of this issue falls heaviest on those already most marginalised. Black, minoritised and migrant women face the highest barriers to safety—barriers rooted in racism, immigration insecurity, stigma and a lack of culturally competent services. Too often they are misjudged, criminalised or simply ignored. The justice system, and indeed society, must stop asking, “Why didn’t she leave?”, and start asking, “Why wasn’t he stopped?” That is the change that amendment 20 calls for. It shines a light on these deaths and makes it clear that when abuse leads to suicide, the law must see it, hear it and respond.
I am pleased that, through this Bill, the Government are taking forward meaningful changes to deliver on Labour’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Government will bring forward changes that recognise the link between abuse and suicide and ensure that our laws reflect that reality. In France, for example, the law was changed in 2020 to recognise suicide or attempted suicide as an outcome of domestic abuse. A perpetrator may now face up to 10 years in prison and a substantial fine if abuse is found to have significantly contributed to the victim’s death. That is the level of seriousness that the issue should demand.
I am grateful to the Victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for meeting me to discuss the issues that my amendment raises, and I welcome her invitation to submit evidence to the forthcoming Law Commission review. I also welcome the Minister’s recognition that current homicide laws do not adequately reflect these cases. I fully support the Bill’s mission to protect victims and restore trust in our justice system, but that justice must be complete. The women driven to take their own lives because of abuse must no longer be invisible to the law.
In short, amendment 20 would criminalise abusers who drive victims to self-harm or suicide by introducing a new offence of encouraging serious self-harm or suicide following a sustained pattern of abuse. The Bill introduces new offences for encouraging or assisting self-harm but falls short of covering cases where victims die by suicide following sustained patterns of coercive control and abuse. Recognising this form of abuse in law is critical. The amended Bill would reflect the severe psychological impact of coercive control, enhance deterrence and increase survivor and public confidence in the criminal justice system. It would also compel judges, juries, coroners and the police to properly investigate and respond to such cases, treating them with the seriousness that they deserve. Ultimately, it would ensure that victims are not failed by a legal framework that continues to overlook the long-term and often fatal results of domestic abuse.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I rise to support my amendment 19, which seeks to amend clause 94, which brings in a new law to make spiking or administering a harmful substance an offence. I am grateful for the cross-party support I have received for this amendment from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs. The intended law around spiking is a sound one, and it generally has cross-party support—indeed, it was a measure in the previous version of this Bill, brought in under the previous Government. My concern is that it has a defect and that there is a loophole. My amendment seeks to close that by ensuring that spiking by a reckless act is also an offence.
Spiking is a hideous, heinous activity that destroys lives. It destroys people’s physical and mental health, and at worst, it kills people. The majority of victims of spiking—74%—are women, and the average age of those being spiked is just 26, but there is no typical spiking incident. The majority involve putting something in a drink, but needle spiking is also on the rise. The most likely place for spiking to happen is in a bar, pub or a club, but it can happen anywhere, including in a supermarket or on the street.
Spiking is most commonly thought among members of the public to be motivated by sexual intent or to facilitate a theft, but in Committee we heard from Colin Mackie from Spike Aware UK about a very different type of spiking, which is what I think the new law fails to address. It is the rise in spiking that seems to have no particular intent behind it. It is sometimes referred to as prank spiking—spiking for, to quote the Government’s own guidance, seemingly “a bit of fun”. We heard from Colin Mackie about how his son Greg died through suspected spiking of that kind.
The Bill criminalises spiking or administering a harmful substance with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy. I do not accept that every case of spiking fits into that definition. I will give an example of a scenario where recklessness would cover a case of spiking—by the way, I should say that recklessness is a well-trodden principle in criminal law, dating back over 200 years. It is an alternative to intent, so that if the prosecution fails to establish that someone meant to do something, it can alternatively establish that their actions were so reckless that they should be convicted.
An example is assault causing actual bodily harm. The prosecution must establish the harm, but it can establish either that someone intended that harm or that they did an act so reckless that harm was bound to follow. It does not matter which it establishes to a jury; it will secure a conviction. It is the same with manslaughter: the prosecution can run a case that although somebody did not intend for someone else to die, their actions were so reckless that they should have known that someone might die, and it can secure a conviction.
By the way, in the absence of law on spiking, those two offences are often used, but they are often defective, which is why the Government are bringing in their own spiking law. However, they have failed to replicate the principle of recklessness within it.
I will give a hypothetical example. A group of friends go into a bar. Two of them have been taking illegal drugs—they have done it before—and they are enjoying themselves. They say to each other, “That friend in our circle—he needs to loosen up some more. He needs to stop his ridiculous opposition to having a bit of fun by taking these pills. I tell you what: we’ll do him a favour. Let’s not tell him, but let’s slip one of these pills we’ve been taking in his drink so he can loosen up and enjoy the evening like we are.” They go ahead and do that, and of course their friend, very likely, is harmed. He may not have done that drug before, or he may have been taking prescription drugs and the mixture is a cocktail.
I am sure the House would intend that those two people had committed a crime, but when they are taken to trial I can see a scenario where their defence will say, “Members of the jury, my clients were foolish. They were silly. They shouldn’t have done it. But they didn’t intend to annoy their friend. They didn’t intend to injure their friend. What they intended to do was have a bit of fun and help him have a bit of fun. It was stupid, but they did not intend it.” How is a jury supposed to convict beyond reasonable doubt on that?
Instead, if the prosecution could point to recklessness, it would be able to say, “Members of the jury, we do not care whether what these two people intended would be fun for that friend. It was so obviously reckless to any reasonable person that it must be a crime, and you must convict.” Clause 94 needs that much more wide-ranging, all-encompassing, tried and tested legal principle in it. My amendment would do just that.
I thank Colin Mackie from Spike Aware UK for bringing that evidence to the Bill Committee, and Stamp Out Spiking, which has also done a huge amount, as well as Members no longer in this place who have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes.
Simon Hoare
I am not a lawyer, but my hon. Friend has deployed a clear and compelling argument. At the beginning of his remarks, he referenced how amendment 19, to which I am a signatory, commands cross-party support. In advance of anything the Minister may say, is my hon. Friend able to indicate, from conversations he has had with the Home Office and individual Ministers, the Government’s response? He seems to be making such a compelling case; it would be helpful if the Government accepted it.
Joe Robertson
I thank my hon. Friend. I was on the Bill Committee, where a similar amendment was tabled, so I can reference the Minister’s response at that time. I have also had a brief word with the Minister outside this place. The Government’s position seems to be that the type of activity I am describing is covered in the intent to annoy, but I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that all reckless acts are plainly not covered by an intention to annoy.
I do not for one minute suggest that the Government wilfully do not want the law to work and to cover all scenarios, but I am left with the impression that they have not sufficiently addressed their mind to the gaping loophole that is staring them in the face. If they do not like my amendment, I urge them to draft an amendment of their own to deal with the issue. If just one person walks free following this law because they were able to convince a jury that their actions were not annoying—but they would have been deemed reckless—that will be a terrible failure of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think again, and I urge all across the House to vote for the amendment to force the Government’s hand.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I tabled amendment 161 on public order issues and the policing of demonstrations. Before I get to that, I welcome the proposals in the Bill on fly-tipping, and I look forward to the guidance that will be issued to the various authorities to deal with it. I am attracted by the Opposition’s amendments on what is included in that guidance, largely because, like other Members, my constituency is plagued with fly-tipping. I seem to be followed by a mattress throughout my constituency in virtually every area I visit.
I come to public order and my amendment, which I tabled to try to get on the record the reality of what is happening with the public order issue and demonstrations. In the explanatory notes, the Government have set out this argument:
“The regular protests following the events in Israel and Gaza on 7 October 2023 highlighted gaps in public order legislation, principally the Public Order Acts 1986 and 2023.”
They have therefore brought forward proposals in response to the policing challenges of such protests.
Since 7 October, I have been on virtually every national demonstration in central London organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other groups. I understand the pressure on the police service; in fact, I have police constituents who have had their leave cancelled and all the rest because of the frequency of the protests, but that has largely been a response to the depth of concern about what is happening in Gaza. People have wanted to express their view, and one of the ways of doing that through our democratic system is to demonstrate and march and protest. All the demonstrations I have been on have been peaceful, good natured and—up until a few recent incidents—extremely well policed.
In the explanatory notes, the Government set out that legislation is being brought forward in relation to three things, which I think we can all agree on. There is:
“A new criminal offence of climbing on war memorials.”
Secondly, there is
“possession of a pyrotechnic article at a protest”,
which is dangerous, anyway. The other is about concealing identity, although issues with that are referred to in other amendments, because that might well have an impact on the exercise of religious freedoms, particularly with regard to the veil and being able to dress.
The Government do not cite in the explanatory notes the issue in clause 114 of restriction on protests at places of worship. In all the national demonstrations in London that have taken place, there has never been an incident outside a place of worship. Concerns have been expressed by some groups, but largely, I think, they have been by groups who have motivations other than concerns about public order.
In the negotiations with the Metropolitan police on each demonstration that has taken place, there has been a long discussion in which the route is identified, and usually there is overall agreement to avoid any areas that could be seen as contentious and could provoke a reaction. Even when a place of worship, such as a synagogue, has been some distance from the demonstration, the organisers have tried to ensure not just proper stewarding, so that the demonstration does not go anywhere near it—usually, it has to be 10 or 15 minutes’ walking distance away—but that the times of services are avoided as well.
Interestingly, until recently there had never been a problem, but the police seem to have hardened their attitude, I think as a result of coming under pressure from organisations that might simply not want the protest to go ahead in any form because they take a different attitude to what is happening in Gaza and Pakistan. [Interruption.] If the water the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) is carrying is for me, I thank him.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I rise to speak to amendments 4 to 8 on child criminal exploitation. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for their speeches and proposals.
I voice my support for amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), which would prevent driver’s licence information obtained by the police being used for the purposes of intrusive facial recognition and gathering biometrics, and amendment 164 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), which would remove clause 108 and the ban on face coverings in protest situations. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) has also tabled mitigating amendments on that subject; amendment 184 would create exceptions, and not just defences, relating to health, work, and religious faith coverings. I also support amendment 185, which proposes an equality review. I hope the Government will look at them all.
I welcome the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect vulnerable children, and I particularly welcome the introduction of a new offence of child criminal exploitation, which will signal to perpetrators that coercing, manipulating and exploiting children into criminal activity is child abuse and will be treated as such. Criminals are exploiting thousands of vulnerable children; Children In Need data shows that more than 15,000 children were at risk of exploitation in 2023-24, and that is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.
The perpetrators of exploitation include serious organised crime gangs, which are well versed in taking advantage of legislative gaps. Even though the Bill takes a huge step forward, areas of it must be strengthened if we are to protect children and bring the perpetrators of that abuse to justice. That is why I have tabled amendments 4 to 8.
First, amendments 4 and 5 would amend the wording in clause 38 to ensure that the offence includes activities that put children at significant risk and are linked to criminal conduct but are not in themselves criminal offences. Examples of this include carrying large amounts of cash on public transport, being used as a look-out or decoy, and guarding unsafe accommodation alone. Amendment 6 expands the definition of “exploitative activity” to ensure that preparatory acts, such as grooming and coercion, are captured by the offence.
I welcome the Minister’s comments earlier, and am grateful for the engagement with these amendments, but it is not yet obvious to me how referencing only the facilitation of future offences covers the gaps that would be closed by amendments 4 and 5, and amendment 6 seems to have been only partly addressed. I would therefore welcome further clarification, or a discussion of the issue with the Minister, ahead of consideration in the other place.
Secondly, amendment 7 would remove clause 38(1)(b), which currently amounts to a defence if the perpetrator reasonably believes that the child is over 18, unless the child is under the age of 13. While such provisions are common in other areas of law, in the case of criminal exploitation, this clause risks undermining the prosecution of perpetrators due to the well-publicised issues of adultification and racism within the criminal justice system. The recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report into race discrimination and the Alexis Jay report on criminally exploited children on behalf of Action for Children both highlight the roles of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children, and how it leads to failures in safeguarding responses specifically, but not only, for young black boys. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear: children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and this principle must be upheld by our removing this part of the offence.
Finally, amendment 8 to clause 53 would insert the words “aged 18 or over”. This would ensure that children could not be criminalised under the new offence of cuckooing. It would recognise that they are more often than not the victims, not the perpetrators, in these situations. The children targeted are often very young and extremely vulnerable, and they need protection, not prosecution. These amendments are not merely technical; they are essential. They reflect the lived experiences of children, and the findings of numerous reports and reviews that provide compelling evidence of the need for a more robust and child-centred legal framework. I urge all Members of the House to support these proposals. Together, we can take a decisive step towards better protecting vulnerable children from exploitation.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Before I move on to the amendment I want to speak about, I thank the Minister for the speed with which the Government have brought forward this Bill. It addresses important issues around protecting retail workers and tackling shoplifting and antisocial behaviour—issues that communities such as the towns and villages that I represent feel have been overlooked all too often. I really welcome the Government’s urgency of action in recognition of the great campaigns fought by many unions, including USDAW, and also of the real sentiment of my constituents that these crimes need to be taken far more seriously.
Today, though, I want to focus my time on amendment 19 to clause 94, in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which brings forward important legislative action on spiking. I do so on behalf of a constituent. I will call her Sarah today because, understandably, she has asked to be kept anonymous for the purpose of the story she wishes me to share with all Members, but that in no way diminishes the great bravery that she has shown in her work on this. It is a real privilege for Members of the House to meet constituents who, having experienced deeply traumatic, incredibly difficult moments in their personal life, show a resilience and depth of character that lots of us could not even dream of, and who turn their pain and personal trauma into a powerful force for change. That is deeply true of Sarah, and of so many women right across the country who have been victims of spiking.
Sarah’s story is her own, but it has themes that will resonate with far too many people here and across the UK. It starts on her birthday. Like most of us, she was looking forward to celebrating her birthday with her friends. They had organised drinks in a nearby town, and the night started off filled with fun and joy. It ended, though, with Sarah alone, traumatised, confused and unable to speak, in a car park outside the venue after she was spiked. Sadly, this horrific act is one that far too many women across the country are falling victim to. After she was spiked, Sarah tried to do what she could. She had lost control of her words. She tried to call out for help, but she felt unable to. An ambulance was called, but did not know what to do. It waited there with her, but did not take her to hospital or make sure that she got the aftercare and testing that she needed. She was left to fend for herself.
What is really tragic is the fact that on top of all that trauma, and despite how difficult that moment in the car park must have been for her, it was not the only time in this experience that she felt alone. At every step—when she engaged with the police and the authorities, and when she pushed for action—she was ignored. There was insufficient action and insufficient focus. There was minimal follow-up and no prosecution, and the police took no further action on her case.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant articulation of Sarah’s story, which for too many of us, including myself as the MP for Darlington, is not uncommon. Before I was elected as the MP, I raised this issue in Darlington because a number of people there had been affected by spiking. Does he agree that bringing this provision into law today is important because for so many people—often women and vulnerable people—not being believed when they report being spiked is one of the big barriers to seeking justice?
Alistair Strathern
A lot of us have been inspired by my hon. Friend’s campaigning before she arrived in this place, and her intervention is a powerful example of why. It is exactly that moment—that lack of belief—that far too many victims of spiking are encountering when they go to the authorities at the moment, and it is that lack of belief that we are looking to completely undercut in legislating to make this a specific offence today.
Sarah reached out to me because, excited as she is about the Bill, she rightly wants to ensure that we are delivering it as fully as possible. I know that it is the same motivation that made the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East table his amendment. I thank the Minister for taking the time to speak to me about this amendment on Friday. I know from the conversations she has had with officials that they are confident that, as drafted, the Bill would capture the fullness of possible offences related to spiking.
Joe Robertson
I am grateful to the hon. Member, particularly for setting out the case of his constituent, who was here in Westminster yesterday; indeed, I also met her. Does he accept that it is those of us elected in this Chamber who make decisions, and that assurances from officials that cannot be articulated in this House—I am looking for that articulation—are not a good reason not to back my amendment?
Alistair Strathern
I thank the hon. Member for all the work he has done on this important issue through tabling the amendment, not just now but in Committee. I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth, but I am pretty sure she will be able to articulate some of those officials’ views back to him when summing up. However, I want to ask the Minister, as I am sure the hon. Member and other colleagues would want to, that, as we go through this process—and given that she cares so passionately about this issue—she continues to test that understanding with officials. We owe it to Sarah and the many other victims of spiking to ensure that we get this right. I know the Minister is as determined as I am to ensure that happens, and I really hope that as a result we can fully test officials’ understanding and that view before we finally get the Bill into law, to ensure that we are taking the fullness of action needed to tackle spiking.
That fullness of action is important, because the issues that Sarah encountered and the challenges that far too many people face from spiking right across the country are not ones that we can solve with legislation alone. That is an important part of why we are acting by bringing forward a new clause today, and why we are discussing amendment 19.
If the Bill is finally passed and finally brings forward that specific offence that so many of us have been looking for, I hope that it will not be the end of the story. I hope the Minister will be able to bring forward further action, working closely with police chiefs and commissioners, to ensure that this is drilled into their strategic visions as part of our national strategy to reduce violence against women and girls.
We need to make sure that forces appropriately prioritise spiking cases, that officers are appropriately trained to encounter them and take them seriously, ensuring that deadlines around collecting CCTV are not missed before crucial evidence is deleted. We need to ensure that right across the country, there is not a single force that is not taking this issue with the seriousness that it deserves. I will certainly be reaching out to both my police and crime commissioners to urge them to do exactly that, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts about how this Government can make sure that we use all the powers and tools at our disposal to ensure that police forces are doing so too.
If we are to deter possible perpetrators of this crime, it is important that the severity of this new legislation and the new penalties are well understood, too. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that we are disseminating the action we are underlining today, and hopefully bringing into law in due course, to ensure that right across the country no one is under any illusions that spiking is not a deeply serious offence. It will be treated as such by this Government and by the police, who will go after them with the full force of the law.
For far too long, victims like Sarah and far too many people—typically women—right across the country have been left exposed to spiking. They have been left feeling like they are victims and left to go through their experiences alone. Fantastic organisations like Spike Aware UK have done all they can to champion their cause, to bring them together, to mobilise and to reinforce the need for change, but it is only through action nationally and delivering through our police forces right across the country that we can finally do justice to the severity of this issue and to the passionate campaigning of constituents like Sarah, who for far too long have felt that they have been suffering alone. I am glad to see this legislation coming forward and to see this specific spiking offence included. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that we can deliver it in as ambitious a way as possible.
Wendy Morton
As we have heard, the Bill is broad in scope. Before I turn to the couple of amendments that I support, I want to recognise that the Bill’s scope is evidenced by the breadth and number of amendments and new clauses. It is worth gently reminding ourselves that a number of the measures were carried over from the Criminal Justice Bill, which sadly fell due to the general election almost a year ago, though there are obviously new clauses and amendments. I hope the Minister is in listening mode, in change mode and is willing to work across the House, and I hope that she accepts some of these amendments, because they would go a long way to further improving this legislation.
I have read through the Bill, and much of it goes right to the heart of the communities we seek to serve and represent. There are topics in the Bill that regularly pop up in my inbox and I am sure into colleagues’ inboxes as well. I want to cover two specific areas. The first is fly-tipping and littering—an issue that I have spoken about on many occasions in this Chamber since I was first elected. I support the amendments and new clauses tabled by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
In an intervention earlier, I touched on the cost of littering to the country. I think I said that it was £1 million, but I meant £1 billion; I hope that can be firmly corrected, because it is a big difference. The principle is the same—it is money that could go back into our communities—but £1 billion spent on managing littering and fly-tipping is a huge amount of money that could otherwise buy a huge amount of services for constituencies up and down the country.
Lola McEvoy
Does the right hon. Lady’s calculation of £1 billion account for how people feel, for the degradation of pride in areas where people fly-tip, and for the failure of local services to be able to afford to collect and clean up rubbish tips on the side of our roads? I wonder if there is a multiplier effect in how people feel about their areas because of all this fly-tipping.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes an important point. There is a social and community cost that is difficult to evaluate. I am fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers and groups, including the Wombles group, that go out and litter pick. I do not mind going out and helping when I can. There is a great sense of a community coming together, but nothing is more frustrating than litter picking a street, walking back and finding that one of the tossers has just tossed some more litter out of their car.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I do not think the right hon. Member was pointing at her shadow Minister when she was accusing somebody of being a litter tosser—I think it was just a dramatic gesture, because nothing could be further from the truth.
Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), does the right hon. Member agree that when people see potholes unfilled, litter uncollected, overgrown verges and general disrepair—when they are walking through decline—they feel hopeless, not just about their communities, in which they take such pride, but about the ability of their council and elected officials to act on their most immediate priorities? Does she agree that when we restore pride in place by fixing these problems, we help to create a confidence that politics can deliver a better community?
Wendy Morton
That is an important point about pride in where we live and about hope. As I travel around the country, I often take a mental note of the number of potholes I drive across; there is a noticeable difference from one authority to another. I have to say that Walsall is quite good at the moment when it comes to filling potholes.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about litter and communities. My local authority of late has been successfully prosecuting some litterbugs. I have seen a couple of examples on social media just this week of individuals who have been treating the high street in Pelsall as their own personal litter bin, and the local authority has gone after them and fined them. That sends a strong message, but there is more we can do. Although much of this is about clearing up after these people, we also need deterrence to stop this happening. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect for the community and antisocial behaviour, for want of a better word, and it is a burden that we should not expect the taxpayer to keep shouldering. We have reached something of a tipping point, and we need to do something more than letting people walk away with a slap on the wrist.
Whether it is bin strikes, as we have seen in Birmingham, rural fly-tipping or littering, a lot of our communities feel absolutely fed up and overwhelmed, and they want action. I support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister because, taken together, they form a serious and joined-up response that would help to protect and support not only our communities and those who want to keep them clean, but the local environment and wildlife too.
Similarly, it is often local farmers who face the burden of fly-tipping. When fly-tipping happens on their land, the cost of removing it falls to them. It hardly seems fair that they are left to foot the bill for waste that they did not create. Amendment 172, on clean-up costs, seeks to address that. I have heard time and again from frustrated landowners and farmers that the system often punishes the victims of fly-tipping, not the perpetrators.
Lola McEvoy
Does the right hon. Lady have any thoughts on the idea that people who hire somebody privately to take away their rubbish are often being held accountable for that third-party company dumping the rubbish illegally? People are at a loss to know what they are supposed to do.
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes another important point about tackling waste crime—I think that is the technical phrase for it. Again, that is something that I see locally. Enforcement matters, but there also has to be strong reminder—I hate to use the word “education”, so perhaps “reminder” is best—to our constituents: if somebody comes to you and says they will clear your rubbish away, your need to think carefully about where they are putting that rubbish. In my constituency, fridges and mattresses have been dumped. I was driving down Bridle Lane last year and saw a whole lorry or van-load of rubbish that had been fly-tipped in the middle of the road. That meant that the road had to be blocked. That is outrageous and it needs to stop.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Lawlessness, antisocial behaviour, street crime and shoplifting have dragged our communities down. When people believe that they can act with impunity, without fear of apprehension or respect for others, we need Parliament to come down hard to restore law and order and give the police the resources that they need to make our streets safe again. I therefore take this opportunity to welcome the Crime and Policing Bill, which put right the years of damage and disregard caused by the previous Government.
My focus today is on street racing, a problem that stretches across the country but has become a curse in Bassetlaw, where cars speed along a stretch of the A57, the by-pass that runs through Worksop and then into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards). Those unofficial road-racing events are organised via social media. People meet up in an edge-of-town car park and then stage races up and down the A57, attracting huge crowds who come to witness the speeds and the flashy souped-up cars with booming exhausts.
Residents living close to the A57 hear the noise, including the screeching of tyres, but they are terrified that they or a family member will get caught up with the racers as they drive home or go about their daily business. The fear of a nasty accident is all pervasive. Across the country, people who have turned up to watch the racing have died, such as 19-year-old Ben Corfield and 16-year-old Liberty Charris from Dudley, and 19-year-old Sophie Smith from Radcliffe—young lives needlessly lost.
Cameron Thomas
Let me say, in the spirit of openness, that as a young man I perhaps did not always drive as responsibly as I do now. Although the hon. Lady is making an important point, there is an educational component to this. Will she join me in commending the work of the Under 17 Car Club and its Pathfinder initiative, which teaches young drivers about the dangers of driving in that fashion?
Jo White
My concern is that such unorganised racing events are held to show off how fast and noisy cars can be—there needs to be much stronger action to control that. I worry that there will be further deaths and accidents if the police are not given the powers to deal with it.
In Bassetlaw, I visited residents who told me that their lives are a living hell, with their nerves on edge every weekend. Not only do they hear the noise, but the fronts of their houses have become viewing platforms for the crowds.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, because I have experienced exactly what she describes on my own street in Henley. We had a problem with street racing—boy racing, if we can call it that—and I phoned the police on several occasions. They said, “We know it’s happening, but we don’t have the resources to come and deal with it.” Eventually they got so many calls that they acted. They put in place some sort of prevention order for antisocial behaviour, but that could be done only once—they could not do it over an extended timeframe. Does she feel that the powers should be strengthened for the police to stop that intimidating and antisocial behaviour?
Jo White
I very much agree; that is why I am raising it today. The hon. Gentleman talks about public space protection orders, which I will come to shortly, but I think the law needs to be strengthened to give the police much stronger powers to deal with the problem. It is not a local phenomenon, because it is happening right across the country and people are using encrypted social media to organise the groups.
Since those visits, I have been working with Bassetlaw district council and the police on this issue. That council has joined forces with Rotherham council, and they are bringing forward a public space protection order, which I just mentioned, to cover the whole of the A57—from outside Worksop all the way to Rotherham—with the ambition of prohibiting car cruising and giving the police the ability to serve fixed penalty notices, prosecute or issue fines for breaches.
In the meantime, I have worked with the police to install a CCTV camera at a key point on the A57, and there are plans to put up a second. The camera is being used to collect data on the vehicles that turn up for cruising events. The police then send pre-enforcement letters to the car owners. The owners were not necessarily driving at the time, however, because quite often young people have borrowed their parents’ car, meaning that the notices are being sent to parents—but I think that is just as good, to be honest. The police say that that is helping to reduce involvement.
The police tell me that they have put dedicated staffing into patrolling the A57 for the next four weekends. Their zero-tolerance approach will include fines, seizure and reporting to the courts. They are also sharing live intelligence on vehicles moving around the county, in order to be proactive and prevent cruising and meets before they happen. They have been successful, they believe, in preventing racing before it starts. Like me, the police are fearful that someone could die or be seriously injured, so they regard this matter as a high priority. I am disappointed that the local police of the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) do not consider it in the same way.
This is a serious issue. Most weekends on Friday, Saturday or Sunday night, such cars are present. People perhaps just meet in an empty supermarket car park to compare their vehicles, but on other occasions they take the opportunity to race. I have been out to look at the cars myself to see who those individuals are. At first, I thought that they were using their vehicles to engage in crime, but the whole focus is on showing off their souped-up vehicles. We have already had deaths—quite often of the people who go out to witness the speeding—so I am calling for much stronger action to prevent further death.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The increased orders in the Crime and Policing Bill, such as respect orders, will help to tackle antisocial behaviour. Does my hon. Friend think that they could be a vehicle—sorry, poor choice of word—to address the gatherings that she has described?
Jo White
I agree with my hon. Friend—those orders could be used.
The Bill strengthens the ability to seize motor vehicles when they are used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance, but this is a nationwide problem, and I ask the Minister for a private discussion to consider whether the Bill can be strengthened to make it criminal to organise, promote or attend an unofficial road-racing event.
I welcome the Bill because it respects and recognises the daily risks our shop workers face. My constituent went to buy a pint of milk in his local Sainsbury’s at Easter time. He was queuing up for the milk when somebody rushed in and swept the whole shelf of Easter eggs into a bag. They call it “supermarket sweep”, and it is the new form of shoplifting. It is not someone sneakily putting something in their pocket or bag—it is people stealing food to order very publicly, and it is food that is worth a lot of money.
Lola McEvoy
In my constituency of Darlington, I have witnessed people doing what my hon. Friend described so often that it is now a common source of conversation between me and the assistants working in those shops. Does she agree that USDAW’s campaign to protect shop workers, which has been going on for years, is brilliant and that it is excellent that this Labour Government are going to finally introduce the right punishments for people who commit aggravated assaults against shop workers?
Jo White
USDAW was the first union I ever joined, and I very much support its campaign. I share the fear that shop workers have, because there is nothing they can do. They have to sit or stand and watch the crime happen, for fear of being assaulted or abused—that is the advice that USDAW and their management have given them. The law has to be strengthened to protect them. They have to go to work every day and face that fear, which creates inordinate stress. That is unacceptable.
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. In my constituency of Bournemouth East, I regularly talk to shop workers who are experiencing the scourge of shoplifting—no, wholesale looting—and they are being made to feel incredibly unsafe. I am thinking of the staff of Tesco in Tuckton, the Co-op on Seabourne Road and Tesco on the Grove in Southbourne. I am also thinking of the owner of a wine shop who has a hockey stick beside them, so that they can chase away shoplifters who try to take carts of wine bottles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very good news that our Labour Government are introducing a new offence of assaulting retail workers and ending the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting? Will she also commend the Co-op party, which, like USDAW, has campaigned so hard for this new law?
Jo White
I wholeheartedly agree. It is not just USDAW; the Co-op party has campaigned vociferously on this matter, too. It is so important, and I very much welcome the action this Government are taking. This has gone on for too long. People need to feel safe in the workplace, and this is the best step we can take towards that.
Shop workers in Worksop town centre also have to deal with an inordinate amount of antisocial behaviour. For example, I have been told about how young people come into Greggs, take food from the cabinets and throw it about. The shop workers there feel so fearful that they have not taken the covid screens down, because they do not want to be attacked. The intimidation they feel is not acceptable. I have visited an opticians where the management escort their staff out of the workplace to their cars on a regular basis. It was particularly bad last winter, when I spoke to staff and management there because I was so concerned. I have had meetings with the council and the police to tackle this issue.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing neighbourhood policing, with more police in our town centres. Everybody tells me they want to see more police walking the streets so that they feel safe as they go into town and can make the choice about where they shop. I do not want people to think about their safety when they go into town centres in my constituency. It is a priority that they know where the police are, know them by their names and feel safe as they go into town. This Bill goes to the heart of many of the issues that have broken our country, and we are doing what we can to repair it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
There is not a huge number of areas of the Bill that impact Scotland directly, given the role of the justice system in Scotland, but road traffic law is one of those areas. Antisocial behaviour involving vehicles has been raised by several Members today, and some powers, including those over vehicle licensing, remain reserved.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. This is, indeed, a serious problem across the country. In my constituency, many residents are concerned about speeding e-bikes of various types. I am pleased that our local force, Thames Valley Police, is taking more action, and I would urge it to go further. I am glad to hear that Police Scotland is also taking action on this terrible menace.
Graham Leadbitter
I am pleased to hear that work is ongoing throughout the country.
I should have said at the start that I am speaking to amendment 2, which stands in my name. The SNP recognises that there have been calls for further legislation on licensing, which is what my amendment relates to. The SNP tabled a similar amendment in Committee relating to off-road bikes.
Everyone who uses our roads and paths is responsible for respecting other road and path users and for following the rules and guidance in the highway code. Unfortunately, a significant minority of road users are not respecting the rights of other road users and are riding motorised vehicles illegally on our roads and paths. In the worst cases, they have caused serious injury and death to either themselves or other people, causing huge heartache for the families affected.
Lola McEvoy
I commend the hon. Member for making that important point—these young people who are using off-road bikes are not only tearing up communities and green spaces, but putting themselves at severe risk. I commend him for bringing that point to the House, because it is such an important one.
Graham Leadbitter
It goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who talked about his experience as a young driver and being a more responsible driver now. I would echo that myself, and I am sure most people recognise that in themselves. Some of it is inexperience, sometimes it is just plain stupidity, but that education is important to help tackle the issue, and ensure that people understand the potential consequences of such actions both for themselves and for other people.
A particularly good education piece was done in north-east Scotland, when children from all over the area went to a large venue and were given a hard-hitting and pretty blunt message, including videos of serious road accidents where people had been either seriously injured or killed. When they went into the venue they saw a fine-looking car; when they came out, that car had been crushed as if it had been in an accident. That was a hard-hitting experience, and lots of young people came out of it with a new respect for driving and using motor vehicles.
I turn now to off-road and quad bikes, and particularly e-bikes, which the amendment is focused on. The SNP supports Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with illegally modified vehicles and the misuse of off-road vehicles. The Scottish Government are considering ways forward, in partnership with Police Scotland and local authorities, to tackle vehicle nuisance and related safety issues. That includes continuing to liaise with the UK Government—a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, and I welcome that work by the Minister and her civil servants, which has been helpful. The ongoing collaboration ensures that Scottish interests are considered in any UK-wide decisions affecting road safety.
We are also considering further options, including liaising with the UK Government on a cross-party basis, and community engagement regarding the potential use of mobile safety camera vans to deter registered vehicles from speeding on public roads. The amendment calls on the Government to conduct a consultation on licensing and tracking the ownership of e-bikes and e-scooters, which in many cases are required to be insured, although the public are generally not aware of that.
I will make a final plea to the insurance sector, which I think could be doing a lot more to make it clear to people what insurance does and does not cover. The modification of vehicles—that was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)—is one such issue, and I do not recall seeing a great deal about that in insurance documents I have received over the years. The insurance industry could do a lot more to increase public awareness and try to tackle such issues and support the Scottish and UK Governments in their objectives.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be speaking to a number of new clauses, but I will start by setting out a tiny bit of context and saying why the Bill is so important for my town. At the heart of Ipswich is a community—neighbours who support each other, and small businesses that serve us in the town centre and that are seeing real shoots of recovery. However, there is no doubt that when I was proudly elected as its MP, we were arguably at our lowest ebb for generations. Regenerating our town is not just about economics; it is about rebuilding our community, and that is exactly what the Bill helps to deliver. I welcome the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which strengthen the Bill further.
This has been a good conversation and cross-party debate, but I say gently to the shadow Minister, who tried to claim credit for a number of the changes, that I do not think the argument “If only we’d had 15 years, rather than 14” will wash with many of the people watching. The challenges that we have spoken about did not happen overnight; they were years in the making. Although I appreciate the conversations that we have had today, we must acknowledge the years of suffering that many of our residents, businesses and emergency services—I will come to them in a moment—have faced. With those years behind us, I welcome the amendments that introduce important provisions to help turn that tide.
The Bill gives the police the power they need to tackle mobile phone thefts and recover stolen goods. As has been said, we are scrapping the £200 shoplifting threshold, which has disproportionately hit small and independent businesses in my town and across the country. It also introduces tough new respect orders to tackle the worst antisocial behaviour offenders, so that our town centre is no longer blighted by the same offenders again and again. Any retail worker in any corner of our town will be able to list a shocking litany of abuse, harassment and sometimes even violence. As has been said, USDAW and the Co-operative party have done incredible work in that area, but such abuse is not part of the job, which is why the Bill creates the specific offence of assaulting a shop worker.
New clause 52 will introduce a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence. It will give the police the necessary powers to act when individuals enter a premises with the intention of committing serious criminal acts, be that burglary, theft, assault or criminal damage. For businesses in towns such as Ipswich, that matters hugely. I speak regularly with local shop owners, small business owners, and retail workers who are proud to serve their communities but who have seen at first hand the impact of rising theft, vandalism, break-ins and antisocial behaviour on our high streets. The new clause gives our police a tool to intervene early before harm is done and when there is clear intent to commit a crime.
The amendments also extend protection to those who protect us. That is why I strongly support new clauses 60 to 62, which strengthen the law to ensure that emergency workers are properly protected from the threats, intimidation and abuse that they all too often face while simply doing their jobs to serve the public. Too many of our frontline police officers, paramedics, NHS staff and firefighters have faced unacceptable abuse. Let me be frank: it is utterly disgusting that those serving our communities and country, who keep us safe, sometimes with great sacrifice and selflessness, all too often suffer such unacceptable behaviour. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber has heard awful stories of emergency workers who have endured abuse on account of their race or religion, and the new clauses make clear the consequences for an individual if they engage in such bigotry.
As I said earlier, we should never accept such things as simply being part of the job. The new measures ensure that when people threaten or insult those emergency workers, there are clear criminal consequences. To our frontline workers, I say this directly: “This House stands with you. You deserve not just our gratitude, but our full support. You protect us, so we will protect you.”
Another sad indictment of the last few years is the absolute impunity for violence against women and girls. I speak to so many women in Ipswich who feel uncomfortable, particularly at night. Women have been told to keep an eye on their drinks for fear of spiking, and victims of other heinous crimes have felt that they are fighting not just the perpetrator, but a system stacked against them. I therefore strongly support stronger stalking protection orders and the new spiking offence.
However, the Bill is about more than new laws; it is also about faster justice, stronger protections, and proper accountability for police and councils when victims are let down. That is why I support new clause 59, which rightly removes time limits for civil claims in child sexual abuse cases. The law should never compound the trauma of victims by closing the doors to justice simply because too much time has passed.
New clauses 54 and 56 also apply much stronger protections for children and young people. The abuse and coercion of children is a grotesque crime, and the cowards using children to carry out their criminal operations should face the full force of the law. We know this abuse can be pernicious, and the tactics that are used are constantly evolving, but these new clauses and other parts of the Bill seek to tackle the issue head-on.
Like the Bill, the new clauses also put victims where they should always have been—at the heart of the legal system. The Bill sends a clear message: we will no longer tolerate survivors being shut out by the technicalities of the system. Their voices matter, their experiences matter and their right to seek justice matters. Public confidence does not just rest on tough talk or new offences; it rests also on a system that people trust—trust that the police will respond, victims will be supported, those who commit crimes will be held to account, and powers granted will be used fairly, proportionately and with accountability.
The safety of our communities cannot rest on central Government alone. I welcome this Bill’s focus on partnership—not passing problems between agencies, but solving them together. The national initiative matches our local initiative in Ipswich. I have been working with Labour-led Ipswich borough council to put in place a groundbreaking partnership with Ipswich Central to tackle street drinking in our town centre. The Bill is proof that if we work together, we can deliver at every level.
While we bring forward fully formed and fully costed plans to make a difference to the lives of people in my town, and in others, I am only too aware that some people still want to divide communities such as ours in Ipswich. They rarely offer real solutions, policies or change. Instead, they simply want to feed resentment, and pit neighbour against neighbour. I know that we are stronger when we stand together—not divided by fear or set against each other, but united in our determination to make our town and our country safer, fairer and more secure for everyone. That is exactly what the Bill will give us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I plan to call the Minister at 3.50 pm, which would give the remaining Members bobbing about five minutes each.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I rise to support amendment 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I hope that the Minister listened to the compelling case that my hon. Friend made, and to the compelling case made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on the issue of spiking more generally.
I want to put on record my support for my constituents, Colin and Mandy Mackie, and their organisation, Spike Aware UK. I do not think any of us can fully comprehend their experience: the police knocked on their door to tell them that their 18-year-old son had died at college from a drug overdose, but they subsequently found out that his non-alcoholic drink had been spiked by five ecstasy tablets. As other Members have said, there was no support or help for the family in that situation. The police assumed that he had died of a drug overdose although they did not know that, and they subsequently apologised to the Mackies for their treatment of them.
What I particularly admire about Colin and Mandy is how they have focused their efforts on ensuring that their experience is not shared by anyone else. That is why I very much welcome the inclusion of spiking in the Bill, which is a continuation from the Criminal Justice Bill introduced in the previous Parliament. The point to be made is about certainty, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East brings certainty to the situation. I have been in this House with previous Ministers who have been told by officials that spiking was already covered by legislation, and therefore there was no need for specific mention of spiking.
David Mundell
Given the strictures on time, I had better not.
Previous Ministers said that there was no need for specific legislation on spiking, because it was already covered. Campaigning, including by your colleague, Madam Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and by my former colleague, Richard Graham, demonstrated that there was a need for a specific measure, and that if we are going to have a specific measure, it needs to bring certainty.
Part of that certainty is for the benefit of the police and others. The police should know that that reckless behaviour is also a crime, and there should not be any dubiety when they arrive at a venue to find someone in a partially conscious state or unable to articulate what has happened to them. It will also allow campaigning to be clear that whatever the circumstances, a drink is spiked or a person is injected, and that is a crime. Amendment 19—or perhaps another amendment that the Government might bring forward in the other place—would bring clarity, which is important. That is what we need to bring about. As the hon. Member for Hitchin said, that can lead to the greater training of the police and NHS workers to be able to support people in a spiking situation. I hope the Minister will reflect on everything that has been said today.
The final point I will make relates particularly to Scotland. We need to have a common approach across the UK; it should not matter whether somebody is spiked in Glasgow, Manchester or Cardiff. That is not to disrespect the devolution settlement and the different approaches of the criminal justice system. The effect and the impact should be the same wherever people are, and the criminality should most certainly be the same, whether the behaviour is intentional or reckless.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will skip through the many amendments I want to support, but there are a few that will really make a difference to people in Milton Keynes Central.
First, I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) said on street racing. Unfortunately, we had a Formula 1 driver who said that his success was based on practising on the grid roads of Milton Keynes, which really encouraged loads of people to decide to race there.
In terms of stalking and spiking, the most egregious bit of spiking for me is the premeditation—sourcing the materials, bringing them to the venue then using them on a person. That is not a crime done on the spur of the moment: significant premeditation comes into it.
One of the major issues we have had in Milton Keynes is organised begging outside our shopping centre. It is organised by gangs. People often look like they are homeless, or they are assumed to be homeless by caring residents in Milton Keynes, but in reality they are housed by the council, and they are exploited. They have a rota for which corner or which shop they can each sit in front of during which period of time, and the majority of the proceeds that people donate go to an organised crime network. Those individuals are being exploited in other ways as well. New clause 53 is so important in addressing this issue as the real, true crime that it is—not the crime of the people begging but of those organising the begging.
I also rise in support of new clause 55, which is on special measures for witnesses, particularly around youth justice. That is very important. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), many people who experience sexual abuse do not come forward for years and years, so new clause 59, which would remove limitations, is really important.
Let me address a couple of other things in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) made such an important speech considering domestic abuse, and she explained it very well. New clause 71 is about barred persons not having employment in law enforcement. We must recognise that, following the case of Sarah Everard, confidence in law enforcement is at an all-time low. When people call law enforcement because they have experienced domestic abuse, sexual harassment, rape or stalking, they are at their most vulnerable and they need to know that the people responding to those incidents—no matter which law enforcement service—will treat them according to the law, and not with some of their own natural biases, as we have seen.
That brings me to my final point. In terms of confidence in policing, we need to ensure that all law enforcement is done with clarity of law, not because of particular campaigning, as we have seen with the enforcement of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which we will debate later.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I was incredibly fortunate to sit on the Bill Committee considering this legislation. It is clear that, although opinions differ on details, we all share a common goal of tackling crime in a meaningful way, so that we can make people feel safe in our communities again.
As a community-focused liberal, I have stated many times that keeping people safe and instilling safety in our neighbourhoods are some of the most powerful ways that we can foster strong communities and improve the quality of life and freedom of opportunity that everyone in our country should enjoy. I am grateful to the Government for their willingness to engage with the points that we all made in Committee, particularly to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). Despite several productive conversations, it is frustrating that several important additions to the Bill were rejected by the Government in Committee.
For that reason, I rise to speak in favour of several new clauses before us. Although several of the measures closest to my heart—those regarding community policing, knife crime and stalking—are not before the House today, there are several pressing new clauses that I feel I must speak to. They pertain to what should be fundamental rights in our country: the right to freedom from oppression, and the right of access to proper healthcare for women. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on the courage he demonstrated in his speech earlier, and encourage the Government to consider the measures he spoke to if they come back from the Lords, if not to consider them beforehand.
I start by expressing my support for amendment 19, which deals with spiking and was tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). Spiking is a horrendous offence—a deeply violating act of harm and potential exploitation that must be treated with the utmost seriousness. In Committee, we heard evidence from Colin Mackie, who is the chair and co-founder of Spike Aware UK. Colin gave important evidence for the Committee to consider, indicating that spiking offences can often be intended as pranks, rather than intended to cause harm. His son Greg died in a suspected drink-spiking incident in a club, and Colin has since campaigned alongside Greg’s mother Mandy for a change in the law to stop similar incidents from occurring.
I also thank the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) for raising broader concerns about spiking. I agree that further measures need to be introduced, including A&E awareness, so that testing takes place, further evidence can be gathered and a conviction can be secured. Amendment 19 is a sensible and necessary clarification of the law. It makes clear what seems painfully obvious: that what matters in spiking cases is not the nature of the intent, but the recklessness and callousness of the act itself. I encourage Members across the House to support the amendment when we vote.
I am also pleased to support amendment 160, as well as related new clauses 92 and 93, which we will discuss tomorrow. Taken together, these amendments create vital safeguards around the right to protest; they would subject facial recognition technologies to the proper scrutiny of a regulatory framework for the first time, and would enshrine the right to protest. From many people in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam and from campaigning groups such as Liberty, I know that these measures are long overdue, and will provide much-needed clarity to police forces as they use new technologies to fight crime. Police forces themselves are asking for these measures, and I am looking forward to a briefing later this month from the Minister on that subject. In particular, I remind the House that Hongkongers in my community are deeply worried about the impact of unregulated use of facial recognition technology on our streets. They fear that, if compromised, such technology could provide a powerful tool to the Chinese Communist party in its transnational oppression of Hongkongers here on our streets in Britain.
We know that facial recognition technology can be a powerful tool for police forces as they try to keep us safe, but as with any new technology with great capacity to infringe on our liberties in daily life, it must be properly regulated. Liberal Democrats have a proud tradition of standing up for those civil liberties, arguing that we must never throw them away or sleepwalk into surrendering them. Amendment 160, which the Liberal Democrats have tabled, is rightly in that tradition. It would make sure that facial recognition technology cannot be used in real time for biometric identification unless certain conditions are satisfied, such as preventing or investigating serious crimes under the Serious Crime Act 2007 or public safety threats such as terrorist attacks, or searching for missing, vulnerable people. It would also make the use of such technology subject to judicial authorisation, with a judge needing to approve its use and appropriately define its scope, duration and purpose. These regulations would allow for safe use of this important tool, protecting our civil liberties while keeping us safe from crime.
Freddie van Mierlo
In the time remaining, I will speak to amendment 9, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and is supported by many Members across the House, including myself. I welcome the Government’s provisions to limit sex offenders’ ability to change their name, and I know that many other Members also welcome them. I pay tribute to tireless campaigners such as Della Wright, who have campaigned for such provisions for many years and who I had the privilege of meeting at an event organised by Emma Jane Taylor, another tireless campaigner and a constituent of mine.
Emma Jane is a survivor, and has spoken very bravely about the lifelong impact of child sexual abuse. Like many survivors, she has channelled her pain into campaigns such as this one and has set up a charity, Project 90-10. That charity is based on research showing that 90% of child sexual abuse is carried out by persons known to the victim.
We are right in the House to focus—as we have in the past—on online abuse and abuse by strangers, but we should not forget that 90% of child sexual abuse is carried out by someone the victim knows. Work by Project 90-10 raises awareness of good safeguarding practices. Emma Jane brought to my attention the loophole that allows sex offenders to change their name and, potentially, continue to offend untraced. Amendment 9 would strengthen the name change provision in the Bill by requiring sex offenders to notify the police of their intention to change their name seven days before submitting an application to do so. Even if the Government do not adopt amendment 9, either here—I know that it will not be voted on—or in the other place, it is important for them to monitor the success of the changes that are in the Bill, and, in particular, the number of sex offenders who do, and do not, come forward to comply with the rules. I hope that the Government will monitor developments closely, and will introduce new legislation if the loophole is not closed, as they intend it to be.
Child sexual abuse is a wicked and despicable crime, and the Government are right to introduce these measures, as well as the others about which Members have spoken so eloquently. I ask the Government to follow up on the Bill’s implementation, and to monitor that extremely closely, as this matter is important to many Members of this House.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to Members for setting out the case for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to as many Members as possible in the remaining time available.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), tabled amendments 167 to 183, which echo many of the amendments considered in Committee. I do not propose to repeat the considered responses that my ministerial colleagues and I provided at that stage, but I will deal with a couple of the amendments to which the shadow Minister referred today.
Amendment 175 deals with the possession of weapons with intent to use unlawful violence. It seeks to increase the maximum sentence for possession of a bladed article or offensive weapon with the intention to use unlawful violence from four years to 14. Increasing the maximum penalty for that offence in isolation, without looking at other possession offences, would result in inconsistency in the law in this area. We have set the maximum penalty for the “possession with intent” offence at four years’ imprisonment to be consistent with the maximum penalties for all other knife-related possession offences. We will conduct a review of the maximum penalties for knife-related offences, and establish whether they are still appropriate.
The shadow Minister said that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation had recommended that the sentence for the new offence of possession of a weapon with intent to cause violence should be increased substantially. In his recent report, the independent reviewer recommended the creation of a new offence for cases where an individual prepares to kill more than two people. He said:
“If this offence is created, then there is no need to reconsider the maximum sentence for the proposed offence of possessing an article with violent intent under the Crime and Policing Bill.”
As I have said, the Government are considering creating such an offence, so increasing the maximum sentence for the new offence of possessing an article with violent intent is unnecessary. We will debate the matter further tomorrow, when we consider the shadow Minister’s new clause 143.
The shadow Minister also tabled, and referred to, amendments 172 and 173, which would make those responsible for fly-tipping
“liable for the costs of cleaning up.”
When local authorities prosecute fly-tippers, on conviction, a cost order can already be made by the court, so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. While sentencing is a matter for the courts, guidance on presenting court cases produced by the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, which the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chairs, explains that prosecutors should consider applying for compensation for the removal of waste, and we will consider building on that advice in the statutory guidance issued under clause 9. Amendment 174 concerns points on driving licences as a penalty for fly-tipping. Again, sentencing is a matter for the courts, but I will ask my counterparts at DEFRA, who are responsible for policy on fly-tipping, to consider the benefits of enabling the endorsement of penalty points for fly-tippers.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) spoke to amendment 160 on the use of live facial recognition in the policing of protests. Live facial recognition is a valuable policing tool that helps to keep people safe. Its use is already governed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection laws. I do, however, recognise the need to assess whether a bespoke legislation framework is needed, and we will set out our plans on this later in the year.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
On facial recognition, does the Minister agree that my amendment 21 would stop the police accessing everybody’s driving licences to use them for complete surveillance, which is not the intention of the Bill?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I probably will not have time to go into detail, but the amendment is not required because what my hon. Friend describes is not what the Bill is intended to do. I am very happy to speak to her outside the Chamber about that, but I reassure her that that is not its intention.
On amendment 157, the Home Office regularly engages with frontline delivery partners and practitioners to understand how the antisocial behaviour powers are being used, and their effectiveness in preventing and tackling ASB. That is why the Bill includes measures to strengthen the powers available to police and local authorities. New requirements in the Bill for local agencies to provide information about ASB to the Government will further enhance our understanding of how the ASB powers are used to tackle antisocial behaviour.
On amendment 158, I want to make it clear that housing injunctions and youth injunctions are not novel. They are already provided for in legislation in the form of the civil injunction, which is being split into three separate orders: the respect order, the youth injunction and the housing injunction. The youth and housing injunctions retain elements of the existing civil injunction that are not covered by the new respect orders—namely, elements relating to offenders under 18 and housing-related nuisance ASB. I also assure the House that any revisions to the ASB statutory guidance are extensively consulted on with relevant stakeholders, including frontline practitioners.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, also spoke to amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), which would apply the duty to report child sexual abuse to anyone working or volunteering in any capacity for religious, belief or faith groups. I know that she has had an opportunity to discuss that amendment in recent days with the Minister who has responsibility for safeguarding.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), I thought it was very helpful and useful for the House to hear his experience and knowledge of the issues involving Jehovah’s Witness groups, and he brought to life what it means when such reports are made.
On amendment 10, the Government do not consider that it would be proportionate to provide for a criminal sanction that may inadvertently create a chilling effect on those who wish to volunteer with children or enter certain professions. We are creating a specific offence of preventing or deterring a person from complying with the duty to report, and anyone who seeks deliberately to prevent someone from fulfilling their mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse will face the full force of the law.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will continue, because I need to cover other amendments that have been tabled.
On amendment 11, assessing the signs and indications of abuse can be complex and subjective, particularly for the very large number of non-experts that this duty will apply to, many of whom are engaging with children infrequently or irregularly. We have therefore chosen to focus the duty on scenarios in which a reporter has been given an unambiguous reason to believe that they are in receipt of an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Amendment 22 seeks to add a reference to the legislative definition of “positions of trust” in schedule 7. However, a person occupies a position of trust only in relation to specific sexual offences committed against a specific child, and the term’s value as a definition for a reporter of abuse is therefore limited. The amendment also has the potential to create confusing duplication, given the significant overlap between regulated activity with children and positions of trust. The list of activities in schedule 7 has been drawn up to set out activities involving positions of trust that may not be adequately covered by the definition of regulated activity. The Government will of course keep this list under review, and amend it if necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) spoke to amendment 20, which relates to the new broader offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm in clause 95. She made a very passionate speech on this issue, and I know that she, too, has met the Minister to discuss it in recent days. On sentencing, the courts must already consider the circumstances of each case, including aggravating and mitigating factors, and follow relevant guidelines set by the independent Sentencing Council. Where a defendant has previous convictions, this is already recognised as a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing.
On whether a charge of murder should be brought in the circumstances set out in the amendment, I have to say to my hon. Friend that the amendment is wholly inconsistent with the criminal offence of murder, which has different elements that must be met before a person can be convicted. That said, it is important to recognise that where the encouragement or assistance results in suicide, the separate offence of encouraging or assisting suicide applies; manslaughter may be charged if there is a direct link between the abuse and the suicide.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke to amendment 161, which aims to delete clause 114. The clause will allow the police to impose conditions on a protest near a place of worship if the police have a reasonable belief that the protest may deter individuals from accessing the place of worship for religious activities, even if that effect is not intended. That gives the police total clarity on how and when they can protect places of worship, while respecting the right to peaceful protest.
A number of hon. and right hon. Members spoke about spiking, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), as well as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who tabled amendment 19. Before I say anything else, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue for many years, including families and campaign groups. Richard Graham, a former Member of this House, was a pioneer of the case for bringing forward a spiking amendment.
As discussed in Committee, the offence as drafted already captures a wide range of criminal behaviours, which cover both spiking and non-spiking incidents; for example, it covers the victim being pepper sprayed. As for the reference to a specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”, that wording is of long standing and has been widely interpreted by the courts. Every case will be judged on the facts. For instance, if someone administers a harmful substance as a prank, they would likely be found to have intended to “annoy” or “aggrieve”. The broadness of the new offence, and the increase in the maximum penalty as compared to the penalty for the existing offence under section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, is, in the Government’s view, sufficient. Introducing recklessness as an alternative to intent risks over-complicating the law and is unnecessary for securing appropriate convictions.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East spent a lot of time looking at this issue, so I want to address it. The spiking clause in the Bill is modelled on the offence under the 1861 Act, which does not have a recklessness test. In the 2004 case of Gantz, an intention to “loosen up” the victim—he referred to that intention in the example he gave today—was covered; it may be helpful for him to reflect on that. We also understand that as recently as last month, a person was convicted of spiking another person “as a joke”. We therefore deem that the inclusion of “recklessness” is unnecessary to ensure the appropriate convictions that we are looking for with this new offence. However, we are very happy to continue to have conversations about this to ensure that we get the law absolutely right.
Many other speeches were made today that I would like to comment on, but I am running swiftly out of time. In my earlier comments, I referred to amendments 4 to 8 from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). I fully understand why amendment 2 was tabled by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), but those who cycle have a duty to do so safely and in accordance with the highway code, and they are wholly responsible and liable for their actions.
In conclusion, I hope that in the light of the responses I have given to the amendments today, Members will not press them. I commend new clause 52 to the House.
Enforcement officer | Senior officer |
|---|---|
a constable of a police force in England and Wales | a constable of at least the rank of inspector |
a constable within the meaning of Part 1 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (see section 99 of that Act) | a constable of at least the rank of inspector |
a police officer within the meaning of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (see section 77(1) of that Act) | a police officer of at least the rank of inspector |
an officer appointed by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland under section 56(1) or (1A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 | an officer of at least the rank of inspector |
a member of a civilian police staff | a constable of at least the rank of inspector |
a constable of the British Transport Police Force | a constable of at least the rank of inspector |
a constable of the Ministry of Defence police | a constable of at least the rank of inspector |
a member of the Royal Navy Police or any other person who is under the direction and control of the Provost Marshal of the Royal Naval Police | a member of the Royal Navy of at least the rank of lieutenant |
a member of the Royal Military Police or any other person who is under the direction and control of the Provost Marshal of the Royal Military Police | a member of the Royal Military of at least the rank of captain |
a member of the Royal Air Force Police or any other person who is under the direction and control of the Provost Marshal of the Royal Air Force Police | a member of the Royal Air Force of at least the rank of flight lieutenant |
a member of the tri-service serious crime unit described in section 375(1A) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 or any other person who is under the direction and control of the Provost Marshal for serious crime | a member of the Royal Navy, Royal Military or Royal Air Force of at least the rank of lieutenant, captain or flight lieutenant |
a National Crime Agency officer | a National Crime Agency officer of grade 3 or above |
an officer of Revenue and Customs | an officer of Revenue and Customs of at least the grade of higher officer |
a member of the Serious Fraud Office | a member of the Serious Fraud Office of grade 7 or above |
a person appointed as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 | an immigration officer of at least the rank of chief immigration officer |
an officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, so far as relating to the Insolvency Service | an officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, so far as relating to the Insolvency Service, of grade 7 or above |
an officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care authorised to conduct investigations on behalf of the Secretary of State | an officer of the department of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care authorised to conduct investigations on behalf of the Secretary of State of grade 7 or above |
an officer of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority | an officer of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority of at least pay band 8b |
‘Section 27A (causing death by dangerous cycling) | Section 28 (dangerous cycling) Section 28B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) Section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling) |
Section 27B (causing serious injury by dangerous cycling) | Section 28 (dangerous cycling) Section 28C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) Section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)’ |
‘Section 28B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) | Section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling) |
Section 28C (causing serious injury by careless, or inconsiderate, cycling) | Section 29 (careless, and inconsiderate, cycling)’” |
“an employee of the Law Officers’ Department | His Majesty’s Attorney General for Jersey” |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now move on to the second part of today’s proceedings, on new clauses and amendments relating to abortion. Before I call Tonia Antoniazzi to move new clause 1, I inform the House that new clause 20 in the name of Stella Creasy, which will be debated as part of this group, will fall if the House agrees to new clause 1.
New Clause 1
Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion
“For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”—(Tonia Antoniazzi.)
This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation, removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
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 20—Application of criminal law of England and Wales to abortion (No. 2)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are implemented in respect of England and Wales.
(2) Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are repealed under the law of England and Wales.
(3) The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 is repealed.
(4) No investigation may be carried out, and no criminal proceedings may be brought or continued, in respect of an offence under those sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 or under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 under the law of England and Wales (whenever committed).
(5) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
(6) In section 6 remove, ‘sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861, and’.
(7) Notwithstanding the repeal of the criminal law relating to abortion, the provisions of sections 1 to 4 of the Abortion Act 1967 remain in place except that that section 1 is amended so as to remove the words ‘a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when’ and replaced with ‘a pregnancy can only be terminated when’.
(8) The Secretary of State must (subject to subsection (9)) by regulations make whatever other changes to the criminal law of England and Wales appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or appropriate for the purpose of complying with subsection (1).
(9) But the duty under subsection (8) must not be carried out so as to—
(a) amend this section,
(b) reduce access to abortion services for women in England and Wales in comparison with access when this section came into force, or
(c) amend section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (medical termination of pregnancy).
(10) The Secretary of State must carry out the duties imposed by this section expeditiously, recognising the importance of doing so for protecting the human rights of women in England and Wales.
(11) In carrying out the duties imposed by this section the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in considering what constitute the rights of women to sexual and reproductive health and to gender equality.
(12) The Secretary of State may (subject to subsection (9)) by regulations make any provision that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate in view of subsection (2) or (3).
(13) For the purpose of this section—
(a) ‘the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’ or ‘the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’ means the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 34/180, 18 December 1979;
(b) ‘the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ means the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, adopted by United Nations General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966; and
(c) ‘the CEDAW report’ means the Report of the Inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW/C/OP.8/GBR/1) published on 6 March 2018.”
New clause 106—Abortion: requirement for in-person consultation—
“In section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967, omit ‘, by telephone or by electronic means’.”
This new clause would mean that a pregnant woman would need to have an in-person consultation before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy.
Amendment 17, in clause 167, page 186, line 36, leave out “or 112” and insert—
“112 or [Application of criminal law of England and Wales to abortion Amendment 2]”.
Amendment 1, in clause 170, page 189, line 22, after subsection (2)(c) insert—
“(ca) section [Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion].”
This amendment is conditional on the introduction of NC1. It would bring the new law into force on the day the Act is passed.
Amendment 18, page 189, line 22, at end insert—
“(ca) [Application of criminal law of England and Wales to abortion No. 2];”.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Nearly five years ago, having suffered a rare complication in her abortion treatment, Nicola Packer lay down in shock, having just delivered a foetus at home. Later arriving at hospital, bleeding and utterly traumatised, she had no idea that her ordeal was about to get profoundly worse and that her life would be torn apart. Recovering from surgery, Nicola was taken from her hospital bed by uniformed police officers in a police van and arrested for illegal abortion offences. In custody, her computers and phone were seized, and she was denied timely access to vital anti-clotting medication.
What followed was a four-and-a-half year pursuit by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service that completely overshadowed Nicola’s life, culminating in her being forced to endure the indignity and turmoil of a trial. She spent every penny she had funding her defence. The most private details of her life were publicly aired, and she had to relive the trauma in front of a jury—all that ultimately to be cleared and found not guilty.
Nicola’s story is deplorable, but there are many others. Laura, a young mother and university student, was criminalised for an abortion forced on her by an abusive partner. He coerced her into taking abortion pills bought illegally online, rather than going to a doctor. Laura describes his violent reaction to her pregnancy:
“he grabbed hold of me, pushed me against the wall, was just screaming in my face…pulling my hair and banging my head off the wall”.
Laura nearly died from blood loss as a result of the illicit medication he had coerced her into taking. When she was arrested, her partner threatened to kill her if she told anyone of his involvement. Laura was jailed for two years; the partner was never investigated by the police.
Another woman called an ambulance moments after giving birth prematurely, but instead of help, seven police officers arrived and searched her bins. Meanwhile, she tried to resuscitate her baby unassisted, who was still attached to her by the umbilical cord. While the baby was in intensive care, she was denied contact; she had to express breast milk and pass it through a door. She tested negative for abortion medication—she had never taken it. Rather, she had gone into spontaneous labour, as she had previously with her other children. She remained under investigation for a year.
One of my constituents discovered that she was pregnant at seven months—she had no symptoms. She was told that she was too late for an abortion. She had seen reports of women being investigated after miscarriages or stillbirths based on their having previously been to an abortion clinic. She spent the rest of her pregnancy terrified that she would lose the baby and be accused of breaking the law. When labour began, she even delayed seeking medical help out of fear.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Can the hon. Lady advise us whether there is any other area of law governing the taking of life in which the guardrails of the criminal law have been removed? That is what new clause 1 proposes when it comes to the voiceless child. Is there no thought of protection for them?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. and learned Member will know that the Abortion Act is not going to be amended. New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help. I have said it before, and I will say it again: just what public interest is being served in the cases I have described? This is not justice; it is cruelty, and it has to end. Backed by 180 cross-party MPs and 50 organisations, and building on years of work by Dame Diana Johnson, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind the hon. Member that she should not have referred to the Minister by name.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every day is a school day.
My amendment, new clause 1, would disapply the criminal law related to abortion for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies. NC1 is a narrow, targeted measure that does not change how abortion services are provided, nor the rules set by the 1967 Abortion Act. The 24-week limit remains; abortions will still require the approval and signatures of two doctors; and women will still have to meet the grounds laid out in the Act.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Not at the moment, but I will later. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy would still be criminalised, as they are now.
There has been a cacophony of misinformation regarding new clause 1, so let us be clear: if it passes, it would still be illegal for medical professionals to provide abortions after 24 weeks, but women would no longer face prosecution. Nearly 99% of abortions happen prior to 20 weeks, and those needing later care often face extreme circumstances such as abuse, trafficking or serious foetal anomalies. The reality is that no woman wakes up 24 or more weeks pregnant and suddenly decides to end her own pregnancy outside a hospital or clinic, with no medical support, but some women in desperate circumstances make choices that many of us would struggle to understand. New clause 1 is about recognising that such women need care and support, not criminalisation.
As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1. I have profound concerns about new clause 106, tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), which would remove the ability of women to have a consultation either on the phone or via electronic means, rowing back on the progress made in 2022 and again requiring women to attend a face-to-face appointment before accessing care. Introduced in 2020, telemedical abortion care represented a revolution for women and access to abortion care in this country. We led the world: evidence gathered in the UK helped women in some of the most restrictive jurisdictions, including the United States, to access abortion remotely. Here, the largest study on abortion care in the world found that telemedicine was safe and effective, and reduced waiting times.
The fact is that half the women accessing abortion in England and Wales now use telemedical care. Given the increases in demand for care since the pandemic, there simply is not the capacity in the NHS or clinics to force these women to attend face-to-face consultations. New clause 106 would have a devastating effect on abortion access in this country, delaying or denying care for women with no clinical evidence to support it.
What concerns me most about the new clause, however, is the claim that making abortion harder to access will help women in abusive relationships. Let me quote from a briefing provided by anti-violence against women and girls groups including End Violence Against Women, Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid, Solace Women’s Aid and Karma Nirvana, which contacted Members before the vote in 2022. They said:
“the argument that telemedicine facilitates reproductive coercion originates with anti-abortion groups, not anti-VAWG groups. The priority for such groups is restricting abortion access, not addressing coercion and abuse. Forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does not solve domestic abuse.”
I could not agree more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who tabled new clause 20, had a terrible experience today: she was unable to walk into Parliament because of the abuse that she was receiving outside and the pictures that were being shown. That was unforgivable, and I want to extend the hand of friendship to her and make it clear that we are not in this place to take such abuse.
While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion, new clause 20 is much broader in terms of the scope of its proposed change to the well-established legal framework that underpins the provision of abortion services. While I entirely agree with her that abortion law needs wider reform, the sector has emphasised its concern about new clause 20 and the ramifications that it poses for the ongoing provision of abortion services in England and Wales. The current settlement, while complex, ensures that abortion is accessible to the vast majority of women and girls, and I think that those in the sector should be listened to, as experts who function within it to provide more than 250,000 abortions every year. More comprehensive reform of abortion law is needed, but the right way to do that is through a future Bill, with considerable collaboration between providers, medical bodies and parliamentarians working together to secure the changes that are needed. That is what a change of this magnitude would require.
Simon Hoare
My friend the hon. Lady—I hope she does not mind if I refer to her as a friend—is making a clear point. She has drawn attention to a great deal of confusion and misrepresentation in respect of what she is trying to achieve in her new clause, and she has shared some heartrending examples. However, she has just said something with which I think the whole House would agree. In recent years, we have seen our legislative approach to abortion effectively as placing ornaments on a legislative Christmas tree, tacking measures on to Bills in a very ad hoc way. I think she is actually right: this is a serious issue—I say this as a husband and as a father of three daughters—that requires serious consideration in a Public Bill Committee, with evidence from all sides and so on. Does she agree with me that, notwithstanding her laudable aims and heartfelt sincerity, it would be much better if these complex issues were dealt with in a free-standing Bill, rather than by amendment to a Crime and Policing Bill?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my friend the hon. Member for his intervention, and I heard him make that point in an earlier intervention on the Minister. The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now. There is no way that these women should be facing what they are facing. Whether or not we agree on this issue, and this is why I have not supported new clause 20, a longer debate on this issue is needed. However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady and I have been friends for all the time we have been here. We had time last night to chat about these things, and we both know each other’s point of view. May I ask her to cast her mind back to telemedicine, if she does not mind? It is said that telemedicine is needed to protect vulnerable women who are unable to attend a clinical setting, but the risks are surely greater. Women may be coerced into abortions against their will with an abuser lurking in the background of a phone call, and pills can fall into the wrong hands, as we all know. Does she accept that, with all the protections she is putting forward to safeguard women, the one thing that does not seem to be part of this process is the unborn baby, and that concerns me greatly?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and for the recognition that, while our voices and opinions differ across the House, we have respect for each other. I do not see this as a discussion about the Abortion Act or raising any issue relating to it, because this is the Crime and Policing Bill, and the new clause is only about ensuring that vulnerable women in those situations have the right help and support. That is the whole purpose of it; it is not about the issues that he would like to discuss now.
Mr Perkins
I absolutely recognise that my hon. Friend is coming from the right place on her amendment. I totally agree with her that a reform is needed, and she has raised some very powerful cases. She describes this as a very narrow change, but in actual fact she is asking us to ensure not just that in such cases the police should act differently, but that in every case ever no woman can ever be prosecuted. It is a hell of a leap for us to take, when this remains against the law, for her to say that these women, whatever the circumstances, must never be prosecuted. That is why I do not think I will be supporting the amendment, despite recognising that she is right that such a reform is needed. Can she say anything to explain why there must never be any prosecution ever?
Tonia Antoniazzi
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because the truth is that we have to flip this around. No woman, or anybody, is deterred. This is not a deterrent. The criminal law does not work as a deterrent. These women are desperate and they need help. They may be coerced, or it could be just a stillbirth—it could be—but prosecution is not going to help the woman at any point.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that these women need help, but I cannot imagine a more lonely and difficult experience than being a woman who has an abortion under the circumstances she is outlining, and I think that is a problem with new clause 1. Would it not actually make abortion much more dangerous and much more lonely by simply decriminalising the woman, but not those who may be there to give support? I cannot think of any other time when someone might be more in need of support.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I do not know of any woman who has had an abortion, at any stage, and taken it lightly. Any abortion at any stage of your pregnancy is a life-changing experience. That is why I do not take this lightly. That is why, whether it is six weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks or whatever, and whether it is in term or out of term, that experience of child loss, whether it is planned or not, stays with a woman for the rest of her life. I do not take this easily, standing up here with the abuse we have had outside this Chamber. This is a serious issue and these are the women who need the help. They need that help and they need it now. We cannot continue in this way. This very simple amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill would take the women out of that situation, and that is what I am seeking to achieve.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
If a woman goes all the way through to full term and then decides it is an inconvenience, does the hon. Lady still think that she should be covered by this legal protection?
Tonia Antoniazzi
Wow. I would like to know if the hon. Member actually knows of any woman who would put themselves in that situation if there was not coercion or control of some kind. Obviously, a lot of research and conversations have been going on for years on this issue. I understand that people across the House have deeply held religious views—indeed, I was brought up a Catholic. My issue, from what I have been told, is this: how would that woman go about it? If it was by taking abortion pills, she would have a baby. Painting a picture of killing an unborn child in that way does not help to serve what we are doing in this place. We need to protect the women. [Interruption.] I need to make progress.
In the meantime, doctors, nurses, midwives, medical bodies, abortion providers and parliamentarians have come together to try to end the criminal prosecution of women on suspicion of illegal abortion offences. This is a specific and urgent problem, and one that is simple to fix. New clause 1 is the only amendment that would protect women currently at risk of prosecution and protect abortion services. That is why it has the explicit backing of every abortion provider and every organisation that represents abortion providers in England and Wales. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing also endorse it. Numerous violence against women and girls groups, including the End Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition, Refuge, Southall Black Sisters, Rape Crisis England and Wales, Imkaan, and the Centre for Women’s Justice, are also behind new clause 1.
The public overwhelmingly support this change too. I implore colleagues not to lose sight of the moral imperative here: namely, vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is urgent. We know that multiple women are still in the system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this in a simple and secure manner. This is the right change at the right time, so I implore colleagues who want to protect women and abortion services to vote for new clause 1. Let us ensure that not a single desperate woman is ever again subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments of their lives. There must be no more Lauras. There must be no more Nicola Packers.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 106, which stands in my name, but first I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which we have been discussing so far. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) spoke about some pretty harrowing cases, and said how the first lady was utterly traumatised by having had her abortion at home, which she received via telemedicine. My new clause seeks to make women safer by ensuring that they are seen and given the opportunity for proper medical consultation before they get to the stage where they are given inappropriate medication because of a misunderstanding, and then end up traumatised, delivering a relatively mature foetus unexpectedly at home.
The hon. Lady did not say during her speech whether she believes that a baby should be terminated right up to term, but I want to put on the record that I do not. I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and I have cared for and personally held babies in my hands from 21 weeks and six days’ gestation right through to term. I am very aware that babies from, say, 30 weeks upwards have a more than 98% chance of survival, so although I am supportive of women’s right to choose early in pregnancy, I am not supportive of similar rights in relation to healthy babies right up to term.
Until the pandemic, women had to attend abortion clinics, where they would see a professional and talk through their desire for an abortion and the reasons for it. At the clinic, it would be checked that the woman was pregnant and how far pregnant she was. The hon. Lady raised cases of women who believed they were so far pregnant, but who turned out to be much further pregnant, which are well known; sometimes it goes the other way. One of the key reasons for this confusion is that women often bleed in early pregnancy, and they may believe that those bleeding episodes represent a period; when a woman thinks that she is 10 weeks pregnant, therefore, she may actually be 14 weeks pregnant.
That consideration is important in the context of accessing an abortion because at-home abortions via telemedicine are allowed only up until 10 weeks. The reason for that is not to be difficult or awkward, or to make it more difficult for women to access abortions; instead, it is a safety issue, because we know that complications are greater later in pregnancy. What happens in the early stages is that the procedure essentially causes the foetus to be born. If that happens to a baby much later in pregnancy, the procedure will cause it to be born when it has a chance of survival, which can lead to a traumatic experience for the mother as they deliver a much larger foetus than expected. It can lead to bleeding and, in one case I am aware of, has led to the death of a mother who was given pills to take at home when she was much further along in her pregnant than she had expected.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If this is about safety, then we also have to think about the safety of the baby. In my constituency, a baby had a live birth at 30 weeks’ gestation. Tragically, that baby went on to live for just four days, struggling over that period, and then died. Must we not consider the baby’s safety as much as the woman’s safety?
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I think we need to consider both.
I remember a case involving a lady, Carla Foster, in June 2023. From my reading of the case, she admitted to lying about where she was in her gestation, saying that she was further back in pregnancy, at seven weeks, when she was actually much further along; she turned out to be around 33 weeks pregnant when her baby—her little girl, whom she called Lily—was born. In the papers I have read about the case, she described being traumatised by the face of that baby, which could have been prevented if she had been to a proper clinic and seen a health professional, as that health professional would have clearly seen that she was not seven weeks pregnant, and that taking abortion pills intended for early pregnancy was not a suitable or safe medical intervention.
If one has a termination later in pregnancy, it is done by foeticide. Essentially, an injection of potassium chloride is administered to kill the baby, and then the baby is born in the usual way, but deceased. That is why it is important to know what the gestation is—because the termination offered under the law is done by a different route, to make sure that it is done safely. We know that the later in pregnancy a termination happens, the more a woman is at risk of medical complications.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an expert and well-informed speech, and I shall be supporting her amendment. On the point about the risks involved with abortion to birth, what does she think about jurisdictions such as New Zealand and the State of Victoria in Australia that have decriminalised abortion and seen a significant increase in failed late-term abortions—where a baby is born and there has been a lot of physical harm and risk as a result?
Dr Johnson
Every jurisdiction has a democratic right to do as it chooses and I respect that, but it is a tragedy when we hear of cases where late-term abortions have not been supported by medical care or the law, and women and infants have suffered significant harm as a result.
I want to raise the case of Stuart Worby. Some people say that this issue is about protecting vulnerable women, but in this case, which was prosecuted in December 2024, a man who did not want his partner to be pregnant, when she did want to be pregnant, decided to take matters into his own hands. He asked a woman who was not pregnant to get the pills for him. He put them in a drink and gave them to his partner, inducing a miscarriage. He has rightly been put in jail for that, but the case demonstrates that there are men out there who will obtain tablets with the help of a woman. That could not have happened if women had to have an in-person appointment, because the woman arriving at the clinic to get the abortion pills on the man’s behalf would be clearly seen not to be pregnant, so would not be able to obtain the medication. My amendment seeks to protect women—women who are wrong about their gestation or who are mistaken in thinking they have had a bleed or whatever—to make sure that they have a safe termination using the right mechanisms.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that I, too, will be supporting her amendment. There has been a lot of talk in this place in recent weeks about coercion—in a different Bill and in a different context. The kind of coercion that she describes is a reality. It is all fine and well to have a fanciful middle-class view of the world, but as I said in respect of a different Bill, there are many wicked people doing many wicked things. The kind of coercion that she describes is the truth; it is the reality.
Dr Johnson
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I shall come to coercion a little later. First, let me go back to new clause 1, which decriminalises the woman having an abortion in relation to her own pregnancy. It seems to me that what many wish to do is decriminalise abortion up until term. That is a legitimate position that some people take.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I urge the hon. Lady to rethink what she is saying. There is nothing in new clause 1 that refers to abortion up until term. There would be no change to the abortion law—absolutely no change at all. We are not saying aborted to term, and it is extremely harmful for her to say that.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Currently, it is illegal for a woman to procure her own abortion between 24 weeks and term if the baby is healthy. If there is a problem, she has to have it done by doctors in hospital. Under the proposed new rules, we will have is a situation where a woman can legally have an abortion up until term if she wants to do so— [Interruption.] Yes, at any gestation. That is a completely legitimate argument. It is not one that I support or agree with, but it is a legitimate argument that people can make. If that is the case, they should have the courage of their convictions and make it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
If criminal law does not work as a deterrent, why did late-term abortions increase in the State of Victoria and in New Zealand after decriminalisation? If we look at New Zealand in 2020, there was a 43% increase in late-term abortions between 20 weeks’ gestation and birth compared with 2019. Therefore, criminal law does act as a deterrent, and when it is removed we see an increase. We need to learn from different jurisdictions in that regard.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady is right to say that we have seen an increase in incidences of people taking abortion pills late. Previously it was very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the pills—it was certainly impossible to obtain them through NHS clinics—but now it is possible, because people can use a telemedicine clinic. They say that they are seven weeks pregnant and ask for pills, and we have seen examples where people have asked for the pills much further on in their pregnancy—into the 30 weeks—obtained the medicine and made themselves very unwell in doing so.
Turning to coercion, when a doctor sees a patient, they take at face value everything the patient tells them. When a lady uses telemedicine to have an abortion, it is not possible for a doctor or clinician to know whether somebody else is in the room with them, or sat the other side of the camera forcing them to say what they are saying. It is not possible for the doctor to know whether the lady is pregnant or not or whether the person asking for the medicine will be the person who takes it. That is very unsafe.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I take the hon. Lady’s point, although the same would apply if someone were face to face with a doctor; for example, I could get abortion pills and then give them to someone else after my appointment. I represent a semi-rural constituency, where we struggle with lack of bus routes and medical facilities. I understand her concerns about coercion, but there will be lots of women in my constituency who are victims of domestic violence and coercion for whom it will be significantly harder to access telemedicine were her amendment to be passed. A point was made about middle-class people, but it would be poorer people who struggle to access the service as a result of her amendment.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Lady is correct that if a woman got the tablets at a clinic, she could give them to somebody else, but in order to get them in the first place she would need to be 10 weeks pregnant, and the clinician would check that she was pregnant. When the medication appears not to have worked, questions would perhaps be asked about where the tablets had gone, so I think there is an inherent safety feature there.
The hon. Lady brings up the issue of bus routes. That is important, but the question is whether we should improve the bus routes or make medical services less safe. Most clinical services are accessed by individuals attending hospitals or clinics, and in some respects this instance is no different, because it is important that proper medical checks are done. I am not trying to limit people’s access to what is clinically legally available. I am trying to make sure that people are safe when they do so.
I want to turn to women who have been trafficked or are being forced into sex work. We talked yesterday in the House about young girls who had been groomed and raped in the grooming gangs scandal. Would we put it past those evil, nasty men to have got drugs and given them to these young girls to hide the evidence of their crimes? I would not.
What about those who want to preserve the honour of their family by preventing their daughter from being pregnant? What about those who think that the baby being carried by their partner is of the wrong gender—they would like a boy but are having a girl? What about those who are trying to cover up sexual abuse, particularly of teenagers and young girls, by causing a termination to hide the evidence of their crimes? What if a partner does not want a baby? Stuart Worby got caught, was prosecuted and is rightly in jail, but how many others have done that and not got caught? We simply will never know.
No one knows who is taking these medications. If we have proper clinics, gestation can be checked, a clinician can ascertain more effectively if a woman is being coerced, and they can make the abortion medically as safe as possible. My amendment is not pro-life or pro-choice. It is pro-safety.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all agree that there are concerns about vulnerable people and abortion law in this country, but we disagree about how to address them. I propose new clause 20 as a way to address those concerns and recognise that the issue of abortion access is increasingly under attack, not just in our country but around the world. If we think that we face these challenges because we have outdated laws in this country, why would we retain them in any shape or form rather than learning from best practice around the world for all our constituents?
To start, let me put on the record that I take seriously all the concerns raised across the House about abortion. I recognise that this is a complex issue, I hear strongly the stories about investigations and prosecutions, and I want to see change, but I also recognise that change does not come without consequences. New clause 20, therefore, is based on what is good abortion law—what many of us have worked on. It is based on what the sector itself used to say mattered, which was that abortion law in England and Wales should recognise developments in modern abortion law in Northern Ireland, delivering on the promise we made in this place in 2019 that abortion was a human right, that safe care was a human right for women, and that we should see a progression of minimum human rights standards on abortion, including through the proposals of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
I want to start with how the new clause would do that. I want to be clear that only this new clause would provide for decriminalisation. Decriminalisation, as defined by Marie Stopes, means removing abortion from the criminal law so that it is no longer governed by both the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929, because that would protect both clinicians and those who are at threat of criminal prosecution. Decriminalisation would not impact the regulations on safe medical use, medical conduct, safeguarding—I recognise that is a serious concern—or the distribution of medicines, and neither would it stop tackling those people who seek to use abortion as a form of abuse or coercion. I want to explain how,
In decriminalising and removing the laws that have caused those problems, the new clause would keep the 1967 Act not as a list of reasons why someone would be exempted from prosecution but as a guide to how abortion should be provided. Many of us in the House would recognise the shock for our constituents that abortion is illegal in theory and that the guidelines in the 1967 Act are the settled will of this place. To resolve any regulatory challenges, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to comply only with sections 85 and 86 of CEDAW—the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. Those sections are about minimum, not maximum, standards of care, and that is only if the Secretary of State believes there appears to be an incongruence that needs to be addressed.
Sir John Hayes
I am trying to reconcile the two things that the hon. Lady has said. She talked about the significance of the 1967 Act. When Lord Steel—David Steel as he was then—spoke on its Second Reading, he said that it was not his aim
“to leave a wide open door for abortion on request”,—[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]
yet she has said that it is a human right and so people should have the right to an abortion. How does she reconcile her advocacy of what she described as the “settled will” of the 1967 Act—not having abortion on request—with the right to have an abortion on request?
Ms Creasy
I hope that the right hon. Member has read the human rights requirements, because they are about the treatment and dignity of the woman in question and the safety of the service provided. I do not believe that Lord Steel would want women to be put at risk; indeed, I think that is why he fought for that original legislation. We have supported these human rights treaties in this place for other reasons. The new clause, as in the provisions in Northern Ireland, would use the human rights requirements as a guide—a template or a test—as to whether the safety and wellbeing of women is at the heart of what many of us believe is a healthcare rather than a criminal matter.
The new clause sets out additional tests for how we would interpret those human rights provisions. It brings in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights to constitute the rights of women to sexual and reproductive health and gender equality. Fundamentally, those human rights are about equal treatment of each other’s bodies. At the moment, the lack of a human right creates an inequality for women in my constituency and his—an inequality that women in Northern Ireland do not face. We should shape services around their wellbeing; it is an established principle.
Some have argued that we should not make this change through amendments to legislation. This issue has always rightly been non-governmental, and there are people who disagree with the right to abortion, and people who support it, in every single party. That means that proposals for reform of abortion will always come from Back Benchers, or from somebody who has won the golden buzzer of a private Member’s Bill, which happens very rarely.
For those who have called for consultation, the good news is that it is exactly what we got by voting for abortion to be a human right in Northern Ireland. If hon. Members’ concern about this amendment is the lack of consultation, they should know that voting for it will trigger a consultation on how to apply the human rights test to abortion provision in England and Wales, so that we can test whether our services meet the objectives that we set for women in Northern Ireland.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There is a difference of principle on the question of human rights, because there are two lives involved in these decisions. That is the fundamental problem.
Ms Creasy
I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s belief, and I will always defend his right to it. I tell him this, however: the human rights of the woman carrying the baby are intricately related to the ability of the baby to survive. If we do not look after women and protect their wellbeing, there will be no babies.
The human rights test allows us to ask whether it matters to us that we treat women equally when it comes to the regulation of this healthcare procedure. Practically, it also means that there is somebody to champion those regulations. In Northern Ireland, the human rights commissioner has taken the Government to court when access to the procedure has been denied. She has established buffer zones and safe access to abortion clinics as a human right. Indeed, she is now looking at telemedicine as a human right, and at how to provide it for women in a safe way.
Jim Allister
The hon. Lady refers to Northern Ireland. It was courtesy of her intervention back in 2019 that we had foisted upon Northern Ireland the most extreme abortion laws of any place in this United Kingdom—laws that totally disregard the rights of the unborn and treat them as a commodity to be disposed of at will and at whim. In consequence, we have seen a huge, unregulated increase in the destruction of human life through the destruction of the unborn in Northern Ireland. I do not think that that is an example that anyone should want to follow in any part of this United Kingdom.
Ms Creasy
I respect the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with abortion, but as I have said throughout my life when campaigning on this issue, stopping access to abortion does not stop abortion; it stops safe abortion. We are talking about how to provide abortion safely. He disagrees with abortion, and I will always defend his right to do so, but I will also point out the thousand women who have now had abortions in Northern Ireland safely, which means that their lives are protected. Surely if somebody is pro-life, they are pro-women’s lives as well. New clause 20 is on that fundamental question.
Ms Creasy
I am sorry, but I cannot. I will tell him afterwards why I cannot, but I promise that it is not out of a lack of respect for his position.
Some say that Northern Ireland is different, but why would we think that women in Northern Ireland are different from women in England and Wales when it comes to human rights? We are seeking not to remove our regulations, but to apply the same test to them. We simply want the Secretary of State to ask whether they are human-rights compliant. Those who celebrated bringing abortion to Northern Ireland, and who continue to promote it, did not just celebrate the provision of a service; they celebrated the liberation of women from this inequality, which we risk perpetuating for our constituents.
Ms Creasy
I am sorry, but I cannot take any interventions.
New clause 20 is primarily about whether we think that abortion is a human right, and how we apply that principle to our laws here. It is also about the very present and real threat to access in our communities. Members will have seen outside this place the modern anti-abortion movement that we now have in the UK, and will have received the scaremongering emails. Of course those in that movement are reacting more strongly than ever to the idea of women having this human right protected in law, because their opposition is not about children. If it was, they would not shout at mine when they see them in the street. It is about controlling women. They do not openly advocate for an end to abortion access, but they make lurid claims, including the claim that there would be abortion at birth, so let me put that one to bed. Because new clause 20 retains the 1967 framework, it retains not just the time limit—crucially, it is different from new clause 1 in that regard—but all the provisions in the 1967 Act relating to everyone involved in an abortion.
Ms Creasy
I am sorry; I cannot take interventions because of time.
Those who worry that new clause 20 removes outdated laws should look at the limited number of prosecutions that have taken place under existing laws, and compare it to the number of investigations that have taken place. Let us deal with the claims that are being put about. First, there is a claim that repeal would mean that there would no longer be the crime that MSI has called reproductive coercion. That is what it called the offence of coercion in the Serious Crime Act 2015, which it hailed. That offence would remain, and it explicitly covers forcing someone to have an abortion, giving the same penalty as section 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Those who claim that coercing someone to have an abortion would be legal under new clause 20 have not paid attention to that legislation, or to the calls from the abortion providers to ensure that more healthcare providers—and, it seems, more Government lawyers—are aware of that 2015 law, and of reproductive coercion.
Those who claim that the loss of the “concealment of the body” law in section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act would facilitate live abortions should look at the existing laws on grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm, which are used in such cases because of the difficulty of proving an offence under section 60, and indeed because of the requirements of the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Having given birth to a baby at 37 weeks, I want to be very clear why time limits and medical decisions matter when it comes to abortion, not just to the application of substance misuse laws. Let us be very clear that there would be criminal offences to cover the cases that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) described, but we are also talking about removing laws that have criminalised people who have had stillbirths. These are people who need our compassion, and who need us to be able to differentiate between an outdated law that criminalises abortion and the malicious intent in the substance misuse legislation.
People should recognise how seldom these offences can be proved because they make no sense. Also, in retaining the 1967 Act, we retain the good faith principle for all parties to an abortion. That would deal with the trope of sex selection; nobody can prove that abortion for sex selection reasons has happened, but that is covered in the good faith arrangements that are retained with the 1967 legislation.
I return to the subject of Northern Ireland, because it was not the absence of regulation that made a difference; it was Parliament voting to make abortion a human right, and then the Government working with us to make it happen. Voting for new clause 20 would kick-start a similar process. We know that Government lawyers never really like to deal with change—who does?—but this is the proper and appropriate way to proceed, and in our Parliament, this is the only way for Back-Benchers to make changes on matters of conscience.
Those of us who recognise that reproductive rights are the foundation of social justice know that now is the time to act. If we are not free to control what happens to our bodies, we cannot be free in the rest of our lives. Those who are playing politics with abortion play politics with equality. The Vice-President of the US has attacked our buffer zones. We should not tolerate his interference in any matter of human rights. Only new clause 20 would give buffer zones that human rights footing. We would not ask a woman to carry to term a baby that would die at birth, but again, there are people in this place who call our abortion laws ludicrous, and who advocate for a reduction in the time limit, putting a woman’s health second. That would not happen with a human rights framework.
Those of us who care about these rights need to act tonight. Less than half of all men under 40 in this country believe that abortion should be legal in most cases, so those who feel that abortion is a settled matter that cannot be weaponised in our politics need to listen to the drumbeat already banging loudly in this country. We face a choice today. We know that these laws are outdated. Do we retain but limit them, or do we remove them and get ahead of what is to come? I urge colleagues who care about these matters to listen to our American counterparts, who bitterly regret not having acted under Biden and Obama to protect abortion access, and who now find medics being prosecuted and dragged across state lines. Do we learn from how Parliament has acted before?
Procedurally, Members know that if new clause 1 is passed, new clause 20 cannot go to a vote, so they will not have the chance to say whether they believe that a safe and legal abortion is a fundamental human right. I want to be clear that I will support new clause 1, but with great hesitation. That is not because I dismiss those proposing it. I hope we can all agree that there are genuine and decent terms for disagreement. It is because new clause 20 brings in a lock on ministerial powers. It explicitly restricts what Ministers and the Government—not Parliament—can do on this subject in a delegated legislation Committee.
It has been surprising to learn, in these debates, how few people have had the joyous experience of sitting in a delegated legislation Committee, stacked by the Whips with Government MPs, that makes major changes to the law, but in 15 years, that has happened to me a number of times. We have seen it on tuition fee rates and welfare cuts, and the previous Government tried to do it with the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Only new clause 20 would stop Ministers using regulatory powers to overturn abortion rights. They could use them only to bring in human rights-compliant regulations. Conversely, if new clause 1 is passed, there are no constraints on how Ministers could use the powers. The Minister might say that the new clause brings in no requirement to make regulations. That is true. New clause 1 does not require regulation, but it can and will facilitate it. As the Hansard Society points out, Ministers sometimes seek powers in a Bill to enable them to take actions that they consider appropriate. That leaves Ministers with huge powers.
New clause 1 would bring abortion within the province of this legislation and give the Secretary of State enabling powers to make laws relating to abortion, as long as they would not reverse the disapplication of abortion law to a person acting in relation to their own pregnancy. The powers could be used to target medics, or the family of a person seeking an abortion. I therefore ask the Minister to explicitly give a commitment that if new clause 1 is passed, there will be no further regulation on abortion under the Bill, and no application to make new clause 1 workable or to clarify the impact of a prosecution on the anti-abortion laws that remain. If the Minister cannot do that, by definition she proves that that power will exist. By contrast, new clause 20 would restrict that. It would give power back to this place. Nobody can bind a future Parliament, but we can demand that it is not small Committees of hand-picked, select MPs making decisions on the Government’s behalf, and that each of us should be able to act on behalf of our constituents.
Criminalisation does not reduce or deter abortion; it just makes it harder to carry out safely. We should be clear that criminalisation will remain if only new clause 1 is passed. If we want the decriminalisation that the sector has always advocated for—for good reason—it is only through new clause 20 that we can achieve that. I hope that colleagues in the Lords will have heard this debate, and will not let these matters rest.
Regret has no place in politics. It certainly has no place in the politics that I came here to represent. When there are those who would seek to attack women in this way, I pledge to continue fighting for women’s rights. I pledge to continue fighting to make abortion a human right in this country, and I ask colleagues to consider the case for doing so in this way. But I ask people who care about this to think about this moment and whether we will ever have another one when this Parliament could act in such a positive, constructive and established way. We can get one thing over the line. Why not make it the thing that would make the biggest difference to our constituents?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. Members will see that many colleagues wish to get in this evening.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I rise to speak for new clause 106 and against new clauses 1 and 20.
I am grateful for this opportunity to place on the record my grave concerns about this hurried attempt to significantly alter our nation’s abortion laws. It is my view that by doing so we risk creating a series of unintended consequences that could endanger women, rather than protect and empower them. We need more time.
This is not a pro-choice versus pro-life debate. We already have the most inclusive abortion laws in Europe: medical abortion is available up to 24 weeks, which is double the European average, and we have the option of full-term abortion on medical grounds. Instead, today’s debate is about ensuring that legislation as significant as this—seeking to introduce a wholesale change to abortion laws affecting England, Scotland and Wales—is not rushed through without the chance for significant scrutiny. Indeed, 90 minutes of Back-Bench debate does not cut it, in my opinion.
We should, of course, treat women seeking an abortion with compassion and dignity—that goes without saying. As a councillor on Plymouth city council, I chaired the commission on violence against women and girls. Defending the voiceless is my guiding principle in politics, and it is with those women and unborn babies in mind that I make this speech.
As over 1000 medical professionals said in an open letter cited in The Telegraph today,
“If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could, mistakenly, knowingly or under coercion, mislead abortion providers about their gestational age. If either of these amendments were to become law, it would also likely lead to serious risks to women’s health because of the dangers involved with self-administered late abortions.”
They continue,
“Quite aside from the increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit, there would likely be a significant increase in such complications if”
new clause 1 or 20
“were to pass, as they would remove any legal deterrent against women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but, for these reasons, we believe a legal deterrent remains important.”
Many supporters of new clauses 1 and 20 claim that the 24-week time limit for abortions would not change, but that is misleading. Any time limit is meaningless if abortions are legalised all the way up to birth, for any reason, without a legal deterrent. My concern is that, once decriminalisation has taken place, further steps will be taken to expand abortion time limits. Indeed, many of the campaigners mentioned this afternoon are on record saying as much. It is important that we are realistic about that.
Tonia Antoniazzi
We are not here to amend the Abortion Act. This is not a Backbench Business debate. We are here to debate an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. I hope that the hon. Lady stands corrected.
Rebecca Smith
I do not think it is a case of being corrected. I have significant concerns that, should the new clauses be passed, those are the next steps—it is a bit of a slippery slope. We may just have to disagree on that.
Public opinion and professional advice are clear. Polling undertaken by ComRes reveals that only 1% of the public support the introduction of abortion up to birth, 70% of women would like to see a reduction in the time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or less—still well above that of many of our European neighbours—and 89% of the population oppose the sex-selective abortions that new clauses 1 and 20 would allow.
Rebecca Smith
No, I will make some progress.
Those who champion new clause 1 claim that it is needed to stop arrests, long investigations and the prosecution of women, but it is important to highlight that prosecutions under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act almost always relate to males inducing or coercing women into abortions. By decriminalising women, we would, by implication, also stop the opportunity to prosecute abusive or coercive males. To be prosecuted for aiding and abetting abortion, there needs to have been a case to answer in the first place.
Instead, I stand here to suggest a better route forward: new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). She has rehearsed the arguments for that new clause excellently, but I will add that freedom of information requests have revealed that one in 17 women who took pills by post required hospital treatment—equivalent to more than 10,000 women between April 2020 and September 2021. Further investigation found that the number of ambulance service call-outs relating to abortion increased in London. They also increased in the south-west, where my constituency is, from 33 in 2019 to 74 in 2020—a 124% increase. That correlates directly with the removal of the need for a doctor’s appointment. At-home abortions were made permanent by just 27 votes in March 2022. Polling in June 2025 found that two thirds of women support a return to in-person appointments. I call on the House to support new clause 106.
Catherine Fookes
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), which would remove women from the criminal law on abortion. Before my election last year, I served as the director of the Women’s Equality Network Wales, and this issue has long been close to my heart.
Until very recently, violent men ending their partners’ pregnancies made up the bulk of prosecutions under this 1861 law, but recently we have seen a big rise in women being targeted, many erroneously. This is not a law that exists in Northern Ireland, Scotland, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or even, Members may be surprised to know, the most anti-abortion states of America, but it is increasingly used against women in this country.
I want to take some time today to speak about one of these women. I will call her Becca, which I stress is not her real name. I know about what happened to Becca because her mum and dad were horrified at what happened, and they want us to hear about the injustice this law causes and to think of Becca when we cast our votes later.
Catherine Fookes
Due to time, I will not; I apologise.
When Becca gave birth, her baby was small and premature. She says the first hospital she stayed in was amazing, providing support for her, her partner and their baby. The second, however, made the decision—against professional guidance and rules on patient confidentiality —to report her and her partner to the police on suspicion of attempted abortion. One month after her child was born, Becca returned home to register the birth. The police swooped. Both she and her partner were arrested, her from her parents’ house and him from their baby’s cot side. They were held in police cells and interviewed under caution, without understanding what was happening or why.
When they were bailed, social services visited their house and told them they were not allowed to care for their baby without supervision, meaning that Becca could not breastfeed or hold her baby until her parents were approved as supervisors. During that visit, the social worker made a difficult situation even worse, telling the family their baby was deaf and blind as a result of the alleged abortion attempt. The baby was not. This casual cruelty by a social worker caused immense distress. Fortunately, Becca, her partner and her baby are now doing well. Social services agree that they are good parents and are no longer monitoring them.
I imagine that many Members across the Chamber today had never thought this kind of cruelty existed under abortion law in this country. I know that I had never considered it. The truth is that the current legal framework harms women and girls when they are at their most desperate, and the only people who can stop it are us here in Parliament today. While changing the law by voting through new clause 1 today cannot erase what happened to Becca and her family, it can stop it happening to any more women. I urge Members to keep women like Becca in the forefront of their minds when they vote. Think of Becca and vote for new clause 1.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My concerns about these amendments were such that I and others commissioned a leading King’s Counsel to draft a legal opinion regarding their effects. Let me inform Members of his conclusions. I begin with new clause 1. The KC confirms that, under new clause 1, in practice,
“it would no longer be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth.”
I note that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) acknowledges in her explanatory statement to new clause 1 that her amendment applies “at any gestation”—that is, up to full term.
Let us be clear what this means. Under new clause 1, women would be able to perform their own abortions—for example, with abortion pills, which can now be obtained without an in-person gestational age check—up to birth, with no legal deterrent.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Due to medical advancements, we can save the life of a foetus at 21 weeks, yet we can legally terminate a foetus at 24 weeks. I shall be voting against all the amendments relating to the decriminalisation of abortion. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should actually be reducing the window in which it is possible to have an abortion, so that the law reflects the realities of modern medicine?
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree. Let me move to new clause 20. I am dealing with very narrow legal points, and it might be of interest to the House that the KC concludes that the new clause
“would render the 24-week time limit obsolete in respect of the prosecution of women who undertake termination of pregnancy in typical circumstances.”
He explains that
“the NC20 amendment would repeal the abortion law offences”,
including those relating to a “late abortion”. In other words, new clause 20 would fully repeal all existing laws that prohibit abortion in any circumstances, at any gestation, both in relation to a woman undergoing an abortion, and abortion providers or clinicians performing abortions.
In the second iteration of her new clause, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has added a measure that seeks to amend the Abortion Act 1967, to create the impression that a time limit would remain. However, the Abortion Act only provides exemptions against prosecution under the laws that new clause 20 would repeal, so those offences would no longer remain under new clause 20. Since the Abortion Act itself contains no penalties or offences, and neither would the proposed new clause introduce any, adding a mere mention of an ongoing time limit in the Act would be toothless and utterly meaningless under the law. New clause 20 would de facto have the effect of fully decriminalising abortion up to full term for both women and abortion providers.
Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it. It is not often that they will hear me agree with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK’s leading abortion provider, but its assessment of new clause 20 concludes that it would
“largely render the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete”
and
“create a regulatory lacuna around abortion provision and access.”
There is one additional angle that Members need to be aware of. On new clause 20, the legal opinion finds that
“the effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.”
Similarly, on new clause 1 the opinion confirms that
“it would not be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, solely on the basis that the foetus is female.”
These amendments are not pro-woman; they would introduce sex-selective abortion.
Sex-selective abortion is already happening in this country. Back in 2012, a Telegraph investigation found that doctors at UK clinics were agreeing to terminate foetuses because they were either male or female. A BBC investigation in 2018 found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being widely used to determine a baby’s sex early in pregnancy, leading to pressure imposed on some women to have sex-selective abortions. That evidence led the Labour party to urge a ban on such tests being used to determine the sex of babies in the womb. A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics similarly found that several websites were privately offering tests to determine the sex of a baby, and the council warned that the increasing prevalence of private testing may be encouraging sex-selective abortions. Passing new clause 1 or new clause 20 would likely make the situation worse. In conclusion, what we are faced with is an extreme set of amendments going way beyond what public dominion demands, and way beyond what is happening in any other country in the world.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I rise in support of new clause 1 and new clause 20. I am someone who chooses the spend the majority of my time in this place focusing on women, who make up 51% of the population —on mothers, parents, women’s health and maternity—and I would like specifically to address comments that have been made in the Chamber today which pit the life of a foetus against that of a mother. Despite the fact that 40% of MPs are now women, and that every single one of us represents a constituency that will be 50% women, I rarely hear women’s issues being discussed here. On every issue in this House there is an angle that affects women differently, and that especially affects those caring for children differently, yet we do not speak about it.
When people speak against abortion in any form, I am stupefied by the bubble from within which they speak. Will they also speak out about the risk of giving birth when two-thirds of maternity wards are deemed unsafe by the Care Quality Commission? I doubt it. Will they speak out about the fact that more than 1.6 million women are kept out of the labour market because of their caring responsibilities, which are seven times those of men? I doubt it. Will they speak out about children in temporary accommodation, the extortionate cost of childcare, medical negligence and the decimation of Sure Start? I doubt it.
Until hon. Members have done their time making this world one thousand times better for mothers and parents, as it needs to be, I suggest that they reflect on the audacity of making a judgment in isolation today that cries, “Life.” Every decision we make in this place comes relative to its context. A woman who ends up in the truly agonising position of having an abortion is protecting a life—she is protecting her own life. Hers is the life that hon. Members choose to vote against if they vote against these amendments; hers is the life hon. Members would be choosing to discard.
As others have said, in reality, the amendments before us today will affect very few people, but will critically mean that while a woman is the carrier of a child, she will not be criminalised for anything to do with or within her body. Given how little the world tends to care about women and their bodies, I personally trust those individual women far more than I trust any state or judicial system that has yet to prove it can properly support the rights of women. That is why I will be voting for this and any amendments that further the rights of women over their own bodies.
Carla Lockhart
I believe that both lives matter in every pregnancy—both the mum’s life and the child’s life. Abortion is often framed as a choice between the rights of the mother and of the child. I reject that framing, but today we are considering two amendments, new clause 1 and new clause 20, that would be bad for both women and unborn children; and one amendment, new clause 106, that would protect both women and unborn babies who are old enough to survive outside the womb.
In the last Parliament, I, along with a number of colleagues, warned that the pills-by-post scheme for at-home abortions would cause an increase in medical complications, dangerous late abortions and coerced abortions. Sadly, those warnings have become reality. A study based on a freedom of information request to NHS trusts found that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, in 2020, needed hospital treatment for complications; that is the equivalent of more than one in 17 women or 20 per day.
Last December, Stuart Worby was jailed after using abortion pills, obtained by a third party through the pills-by-post scheme, to induce an abortion in a pregnant woman against her knowledge or will. Such cases could have been prevented if abortion providers had not pushed, in the face of warnings about precisely such incidents, for the removal of in-person appointments where a woman’s identity and gestational age could be accurately verified, and any health risks assessed.
The issue of inaccurate gestational age has led indirectly to the amendments before us today. Abortion providers have themselves conceded, and I quote Jonathan Lord, former medical director for Marie Stopes, that, until recently,
“only three women have ever been on trial over the past 160 years”
for illegal abortions. Since then, there has been an increase in investigations and prosecutions, albeit a small number compared to the quarter of a million abortions we now have every year in the United Kingdom. This small rise in prosecutions has been caused by the pills-by-post scheme, which has enabled women, either because they miscalculate their own gestational age or through dishonesty, to obtain abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, when at-home abortions are legal and considered safe for women, and even beyond our 24-week time limit for abortions. Tragically, this has led to viable babies’ lives being ended.
What is the answer? I suggest it cannot be to make things worse by decriminalising abortion. That would be bad for women and unborn lives, removing the legal deterrent against dangerous late-term, unsupervised abortions that would put women at risk as well as babies, even long after they are viable in the womb. This would render our already very late time limit redundant in a context where pills can be obtained without any reliable in-person gestational age check.
The alternative solution is to end the pills-by-post scheme and reinstate in-person consultation. That is why I support new clause 106, and the public support it too. New polling has found that just 4% of women support the current pills-by-post arrangement and two thirds want a return to in-person appointments. Decriminalisation may allow the problems with the pills-by-post scheme to be covered up, but it will not stop the problems happening. In fact, it will incentivise more dangerous late-term abortions of viable babies.
Let me close by turning to Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) hijacked the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc.) Act to impose abortion on Northern Ireland, she argued that women in Northern Ireland faced discrimination because they did not have access to the same abortion provision as women in Great Britain. Let me very clear: Northern Ireland is very different. Northern Ireland does not have the pills-by-post scheme, so a direct correlation with GB cannot be made. I ask hon. Members to support new clause 106.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is worth being absolutely clear about what new clause 1 would and would not do. It would simply remove the threat of prosecution for women who end their own pregnancy: it would not change the abortion time limit, which remains. The rules around telemedicine remain. The requirement for two doctors to sign off remains.
In recent years there has been what I consider to be a worrying rise in the number of people being investigated, prosecuted and even imprisoned under the law. These prosecutions are deeply distressing and, in most cases, entirely disproportionate. It is far more common for a woman to miscarry or to miscalculate the stage of her pregnancy than to wilfully break the law.
To fully address the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I do not think it is right, in the context of what is actually happening in investigations and prosecutions, that any woman should be prosecuted. The harm caused by the number of investigations and prosecutions where it is absolutely not justified outweighs that.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
A constituent came to see me yesterday and explained that when she was 16 she was coerced into a forced marriage by her family. She had not been allowed to have any sex education, so when she became pregnant she did not even realise. It was only when her mum noticed that she managed to access a legal abortion, but she told me that she could have been in a situation in which she would have had to get out of that marriage in order to have a late abortion. Does my hon. Friend think it would be in the public interest to go after women such as my constituent who were in forced marriages? Is that helpful?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely think it is not helpful to go against those women. New clause 1 would retain the criminal prosecution of men who force women to have an abortion, or indeed anyone who coerces a woman into having an abortion. One in eight known pregnancies end in miscarriage, yet we have seen women subjected to invasive investigations, delayed medical care and lengthy legal processes because they have had an abortion or a stillbirth.
Many colleagues have already spoken about the intense distress that legal proceedings inflict, whatever the circumstances. In the case of Nicola Packer, it took four years to clear her name. During that time, the scrutiny she faced was entirely dehumanising, with completely irrelevant matters treated as evidence of wrongdoing. For every woman who ends up in court, many more endure police investigations, often including phone seizures, home searches and even, in some cases, having children removed from their care. All that not only is distressing and disproportionate for those women, but makes abortion less safe. If women are scared of being criminalised, they will not be honest with their midwives, GPs or partner. Abortion is healthcare, and healthcare relies on honest conversations between care providers and patients.
I will rebut a bit of the misinformation that says that new clause 1 would allow abusive partners or others to avoid prosecution. That is simply not true. NC1 applies only to the woman who ends her own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals who act outside the law, and partners and other family members who use violence or coercion would still be criminalised, just as they are now, and quite rightly so.
The amount of misinformation about abortion is distressing—I have seen it within and without this Chamber. What are the facts? Some 88% of abortions happen before nine weeks. As a woman who has lost two very-much wanted pregnancies at about that stage, I am very aware of what that actually means physically, and of what stage the foetus is at then. Abortions after 20 weeks make up just 0.1% of all cases, and those are due to serious medical reasons. Women are not ending their pregnancies because of convenience.
NC1 would not change what is happening with abortion care, but it would protect women from being dragged through these brutal investigations, which are completely inappropriate in the majority of cases anyway. Women are extremely unlikely to try to provoke their own abortion outside the time limits. A criminal sanction for that, or a distressing and intrusive investigation, is entirely disproportionate. It is not in the public interest to subject these women to these investigations.
I will finish with this: women who have abortions, women who have miscarriages and women who have children are not distinct sets of women. Many of us will experience at least two of those things, if not all three. Let us stop making false distinctions and trying to pit groups of women against each other, and let us stop brutally criminalising women—many of them very vulnerable women—in the way that the current law does, because it serves no purpose. Today, we can end that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, and in support of new clause 106, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). First, it is important for me to say that I fully support women’s reproductive rights. I think that we generally get the balance right here in the UK, and protecting that is a hill I would die on. However, I am disturbed by new clauses 1 and 20, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. If they become law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences.
The reason we criminalise late-term abortion is not about punishment; it is about protection. By providing a deterrent to such actions, we protect women. We protect them from trying to perform an abortion at home that is unsafe for them, and from coercive partners and family members who may push them to end late-term pregnancies. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has tabled new clause 1. We share many of the same objectives on other topics, but in this case I think she is trying to solve a very real issue—the increased number of prosecutions—with the wrong solution.
These amendments are driven by the case of Carla Foster, among others. Carla Foster is a mum who was prosecuted under UK law for carrying out an illegal abortion in May 2020, during the covid pandemic. She carried out the abortion at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the relevant drugs through the pills-by-post scheme introduced during lockdown. This is a terrible case that harshly demonstrates the flaws with the current process, but the issue here is not the criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks; it is the fact that Carla Foster was given the pills without checking how far along she was in the first place. She was failed by people here in Parliament who voted to allow those pills to be sent out by mail during lockdown without an in-person consultation. That was an irresponsible decision; and one that might have been forgiven in the light of a global pandemic if it had remained temporary. However, in March 2022 the scheme was made permanent.
If we want to protect women from knowingly or unknowingly acquiring abortion pills after 24 weeks of pregnancy and inducing an abortion at home, we must put an end to the situation in which those pills can be acquired without a face-to-face consultation at which gestational age verification by medical professionals can take place. These drugs are dangerous if not used in the right way, as we saw when Stuart Worby spiked a pregnant woman’s drink with them, resulting in the miscarriage of her 15-week-old baby. Make no mistake: the pills-by-post scheme enabled that evil man and his female accomplice to commit that crime.
It is also important to note that prior to the pills-by-post scheme, only three women had been convicted for an illegal abortion over the past 160 years, demonstrating the effectiveness of the safeguard. However, since that scheme was introduced—according to Jonathan Lord, who was medical director of Marie Stopes at the time—four women have appeared in court on similar charges within an eight-month period. Criminalisation of abortion after 24 weeks is not the problem; the pills-by-post scheme is.
If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery.
We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I rise to oppose new clauses 1 and 20 and to support new clause 106. All the new clauses concern the issue of abortion.
Through the process of decriminalisation, new clauses 1 and 20 will introduce the possibility of de facto abortion up to birth for any reason in this country, for the first time in history. Let me be clear: this means that it will no longer be illegal for a woman to abort a full-term, healthy baby. That would be a profound change in the settled position on abortion in this country for the past 58 years—an extreme move that polling has shown that the vast majority of the country does not want. Indeed, recent polling shows that only 3% of the public support the idea of abortion up to birth. New clause 106 would diminish the risk of women being criminalised for abortions beyond the current legal limit through the reinstitution of in-person appointments. That is popular; recent polling shows that two thirds of women back a return to in-person appointments for abortions.
I do not want to be standing here talking about abortion. It is not something that I came into Parliament to do. I am also very conscious that, as a man, I should be very careful about commenting on the experience of women. However, I feel that new clauses 1 and 20 give me no choice but to speak against them, despite my huge respect for the mover of new clause 1 in particular.
What are we trying to achieve here? If the aim is to decriminalise women in difficult situations, I have huge sympathy for that. For eight years I was the chief executive of a homelessness charity that housed and supported women in desperate situations, many of whom were traumatised, dependent on substances, with fluctuating mental ill health conditions and extensive experience of the criminal justice system. A common theme among them was that they had been abused and harmed from a very early age, consistently into their adulthood. The women we served and supported still had agency. They still had free will. If their circumstances were desperate at times, they nevertheless often confounded those circumstances to rise above them. However, they also made decisions that they regretted. They made decisions, at times, that those around them—and even they themselves, later—were appalled by.
Sam Rushworth
I recall, a few years ago, supporting a woman in a hostel who was traumatised by her own decision to abort a child. Does my hon. Friend agree, in the context of this language about protecting people, that we also need to protect people from these decisions when they are not made with the proper safeguards and protections in place?
David Smith
I do agree. If something is absolute—in terms of the new clauses, as I understand them—it must cover all eventualities, and what we are trying to say is that we simply do not believe that it can.
I have heard it said that no woman would induce an abortion after 24 weeks, but we cannot introduce such a profound change in abortion law on the basis of a simple hope that no woman would take such a drastic step. If we remove the possibility of criminal prosecution for abortion post 24 weeks’ gestation, it is a certainty that some women will take that drastic step if there are no sanctions and no wider consequences.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
David Smith
I am afraid I am going to make some progress.
In 2024, according to Government statistics, there were a quarter of a million abortions. If only 1% of them took place as late-term abortions, that would mean 2,500 late-term abortions a year. We also risk the rise, once more, of backstreet abortions. Imagine a scenario in which a woman knows that she cannot now be prosecuted under the law for a late-term abortion, but for some reason wishes to go ahead with one, or is pressured into it. Surely at this stage she is more likely to get hold of pills by post—which are not considered safe to take outside a clinical context after 10 weeks—by pretending to be under the legal limit, to undertake a dangerous procedure on herself, or to seek to procure an off-the-books abortion.
David Smith
I will make progress.
The new clauses seek to address a perceived problem of police actions that were over-zealous in a handful of cases by making a fundamental change to abortion law that would put more women at risk while also risking the lives of infant children.
Lola McEvoy
My hon. Friend is giving a speech that I think many Members will find difficult to hear from such a wonderful friend and colleague. Does he agree that many women are already facing incredibly difficult situations, and many could already have a late-term abortion for which they could order pills online? We do not want to criminalise those who are not doing that. It is entirely wrong to criminalise people for taking action. Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of women are doing the right thing?
David Smith
I absolutely do agree that the vast majority of women are doing the right thing, but I do not believe that we can cover all eventualities through such a fundamental black-and-white change in the law.
The real problem is that the temporary pills-by-post abortion scheme brought in during covid, which does not require in-person appointments, has been made permanent. That is why I added my name to new clause 106. In-person appointments would remove any doubt about the gestational age of a foetus within a narrow range, and massively reduce the likelihood of successful coercion, which is something I have seen throughout my work, as I have mentioned. This would consequentially remove the possibility of egregious police overreach, which I know my hon. Friends are so concerned about.
David Smith
I am just coming to my conclusion.
The choice for Members is very clear—indeed, stark. It is to approve the biggest change to abortion law in 58 years while, I believe, making things worse for women and their unborn children, or to solve the problem of criminal justice overreach by reinstating in-person appointments for abortion. This is clearly a very difficult subject, and I just feel that amending this Bill is not the right way to go about such a divisive and emotive change, but I will leave it there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The speaking limit is further reduced to three minutes.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 20, which represent rushed changes to our abortion laws of profound consequence not only for the unborn child, but for women themselves. My fear is that, if passed, these new clauses would undermine the ability to prosecute abusive partners who force women into ending a pregnancy, inadvertently lead to more dangerous and highly distressing at-home abortions, and risk reducing the status of an unborn child to a legal non-entity.
I also wish to put on record my deep unease about the continued attempts to lasso unrelated legislation with amendments on abortion. Whether or not one supports liberalisation, we should all be able to agree that these amendments represent substantial change to the existing law.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I am afraid the hon. Member is not stating what my new clause would actually do. It takes women out of the criminal justice system, and this is the Crime and Policing Bill.
Julia Lopez
I was also expressing my concerns about other amendments that have been tabled, but I believe the hon. Member is none the less proposing a substantial change that deserves more than a two-hour debate among Back Benchers.
As MPs, we are not here simply to express our opinions of an ideal world or even to focus only on highly distressing cases; we are legislators, and no greater legislative duty exists than to make sure that what we do in this House does not lead to unintended consequences in the real world for the most vulnerable. In two hours of debate on a Tuesday afternoon, we are being asked to rewrite a profound boundary in British law that protects the unborn child. That is not responsible lawmaking; it is a procedural ambush. It is telling that not even the promoters of decriminalisation in this House can agree on the form it should take. That ought to make each one of us pause, because it speaks to the challenge of moving beyond principle to real-world application.
It is worth our recalling previous efforts to amend Bills in this way and their consequences. The temporary pills-by-post scheme brought in during the crisis of the pandemic was made permanent by an amendment hooked, with little notice, on to an unrelated Bill, and what have we seen since? We have seen women accessing pills under false names and gestational dates, and taking them far beyond the recommended 10-week limit, and viable babies have been lost after late-term abortions. That is not women’s healthcare; it is legal and medical failure.
Julia Lopez
I am afraid there is simply not enough time.
That failure is now being used to justify the loosening of abortion laws still further due to a recent uptick in cases of women being investigated. I have looked carefully at the arguments being pushed for decriminalisation, and with those from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I see that the bogeyman of the US right is back. Apparently, unless we agree to these amendments, evangelical religious groups paid for by US cash are going to start rolling back women’s reproductive rights in this country. This is utter nonsense. We are in the UK, and we have a very different and a more balanced national conversation. This is not pro or anti life. It is not extremist to want protections for viable babies, and it is not anti-women to say that coercion or dangerous self-medication should not be outside the reach of the law.
We also see the argument made that this is solely a woman’s health issue and nobody but she should have a say over what happens to her body, but that is to ignore a very inconvenient truth that has always stalked the abortion debate: this is not about one body; there are two bodies involved. Like it or not, this House has a duty to consider the rights of a woman against the safety and morality of aborting the unborn viable child without consequence. It is not extreme or anti-women to say that a baby matters too. I accept that new clause 1 does not decriminalise a doctor or third party carrying out an abortion outside existing time limits, but let us step back and ask why we have criminal law at all. It is not simply to punish, but to deter.
The former Justice Minister Laura Farris has expressed concerns that the challenge of prosecution for infanticide will become greater. She has also raised similar concerns about prosecuting coercive partners if the termination is no longer a criminal offence.
Tom Hayes
I want to start by aligning myself with, and commending the speeches of, my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues and was proud to listen to what they had to say today. And because of what they had to say today, I have less to say, which will allow more people to speak.
I have been sent here by my constituents to defend and further their right to safe and illegal abortion. My inbox has been inundated with messages from constituents who are concerned, and who want to be able to have safe and legal abortions. They want to be removed from the criminal justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, because we have situations where clinically vulnerable women, who have gone through some of the worst experiences that anybody can go through, will in some cases be arrested straight from the hospital ward, hurried to cells and made to feel unmitigated levels of shame and guilt, on top of the physical and mental traumas they have already experienced.
Lola McEvoy
My hon. Friend is articulating exactly the point, which is that very few women, if any at all, take the decision to have an abortion lightly. It is an incredibly difficult, painful and hard decision, which is physically and mentally very tough to deal with. Does he agree that that is the crux of what we are doing here: alleviating some of the pain that those women are having to go through?
Emily Darlington
Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that it is impossible medically to determine whether somebody has had a miscarriage or has used abortion pills, so the cases these women do not have a scientific or medical basis, only suspicion? If we really wanted to protect the woman, we would make sure that she had the right advice and the right medical support throughout her pregnancy.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do agree, and it takes me to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. She talked about how, over many years, women have been denied access to the healthcare, advice, guidance, childcare and other infrastructure that is so critical to a woman’s quality of life. We need to end that, full stop.
That takes me to another point, which relates to new clause 106. I listened to the mover of new clause 106, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and to those on the Opposition Benches making cases in support of it. I am afraid I do not agree. There is nothing in the clinical evidence available to support the new clause. As somebody who ran a domestic abuse and mental health charity for five years before I was elected, I am very painfully aware of the trauma and difficulties that women who have been domestically abused will go through, and I do not want them to feel, on top of that, shame and trauma about trying to access abortion services. It is important that we think about those people.
I forget who it was on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but they made a really important point about poorer people who are unable to access transport links to access clinics. There was a really important point about our infrastructures being broken down, such as bus connectivity. That is the legacy of the past 14 years, but it is a legacy we must none the less contend with or women will be impeded in their access to abortion services as a consequence.
Luke Taylor
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the British Medical Association, who all know much more than we do about the issue, to vote firmly against new clause 106, because it makes women more vulnerable?
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with those bodies and I agree with him.
Finally, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made an argument about a bogeyman of American politics somehow being conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency, we have BPAS Bournemouth, which was targeted by US Vice-President J.D. Vance when he made his point about buffer zones and abortion access. I have spoken with the people who work at that clinic since that speech was given, and they are scared. They want to support women’s reproductive rights and women’s health and safety, but staff members’ vehicles are being tampered with, and women seeking the clinic’s support are finding their access impeded. They want us to be sensitive in what we say and how we say it, because there are people across our constituencies who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women, and who look to us to send the right signal through how we conduct our politics.
I was a signatory to new clause 1 and new clause 20. I recognise that there will be a vote on new clause 1 first. I will vote in favour of it, and I call on all Members across this House to do the same.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart
As is usual on matters of conscience, these votes will not be whipped by my party today, as I believe is the case across the House. That said, my party passed relevant policy at our party conference, and I will lay out that policy before talking a little about my predecessor’s work on the 1967 Act. Then I will explain, in a personal capacity, why I will support some, but not all, of the amendments before us.
The Liberal Democrats believe that women have the right to make independent decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the state, and that access to reproductive healthcare is a human right. The current law impacts the most vulnerable women. Under that legislation, some can be dragged from hospital beds to prison cells and endure needlessly long periods of investigation and prosecution. The provisions that allow for this were introduced before women were even allowed to vote, so it is not surprising that many see the need for them to be updated.
In the past five years, there have been both debates about whether the police have the resources that they need to keep our community safe, and a surge of police investigations into women suspected of obtaining medication or instruments to end their pregnancy outside the law. That surely cannot be the best use of police time. Lib Dem policy is to ensure proper funding for impartial advice services, so that people can receive comprehensive, unbiased information without being pressured. Access to abortion should never be made more stressful, so we would maintain safe zones around clinics to protect those seeking care.
My predecessor as Liberal MP for Hazel Grove, the late Dr Michael Winstanley, later Lord Winstanley, was key in shaping the Abortion Act 1967. He was on a cross-party group of around a dozen MPs who sought to refine the language and the strategy of that vital legislation. Dr Winstanley continues to be mentioned on the doorstep in my constituency, and he is known, among other things, for bringing calm, professional insight to the debate. He drew on his background as a general practitioner and on his medical knowledge and experience to ground the discussion in medical evidence, and was especially vocal in highlighting the dangerous and often desperate conditions faced by women when abortion was severely restricted. He made the case that legal, regulated abortion was not only safer but more humane.
At the end of this debate, I will join the World Health Organisation, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, psychiatrists, general practitioners and the End Violence Against Women Coalition in supporting new clause 1. To be clear, this new clause would not change how abortion is provided or the legal time limit on it, and it would apply only to women acting in relation to their own pregnancy. Healthcare professionals acting outside the law, and abusive partners using violence or poisoning to end a pregnancy, would still be criminalised, as they are now.
Lisa Smart
I am under strict encouragement from Madam Deputy Speaker to be speedy, so I will not give way.
I very much support the spirit of new clause 20, but I cannot support new clause 106. I acknowledge that those who tabled it want women to be able to access the best healthcare available, but it would be a step backwards to make it harder for women to access the treatment that they need, whether that is women in a coercive relationship, or those who live in a rural area with limited transport options, and who find it hard to access in-person medical appointments. Telemedicine enables timely, accessible abortion care. We rightly speak repeatedly in this House of the strain on our NHS’s space, staff and capacity, so it feels entirely retrograde to roll this service back and insert clinically unnecessary barriers, and I cannot support doing so.
The amendments and new clauses before us are subject to free votes, so Members can rightly choose for themselves. I very much hope that we choose to move forwards, not back.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In recent weeks and months in this House, we have become familiar with votes of conscience. The amendments that I shall speak to—new clauses 1, 20 and 106—are also matters of conscience. Although I am responding for his Majesty’s official Opposition, Conservative Members will have free votes, so the views that I express will be my own, and I fully recognise that there may be Conservative colleagues who disagree with me.
I recognise that the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) tabled new clauses 1 and 20 with the very best of intent. I have no doubt that all Members who signed them did so with the objective of supporting and safeguarding the rights of women, and I can unequivocally say that I share those aims, as do my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who have also spoken. However, I do not believe that new clauses 1 or 20 achieve the safeguarding of women that Members seek.
Views on abortion do not have to be absolutist. Being pro-choice is not incompatible with being pro-life when the foetus is at a stage at which it is inherently viable. Believing that women should have autonomy over their bodies does not negate the need for a system that safeguards women from physical and emotional harm. As we have heard, new clause 1 would ensure that pregnant women were not criminalised for accessing an abortion during their pregnancy. It would, however, retain the law relating to the provision of abortion in healthcare settings as it stands. Effectively, a woman in England and Wales would legally be able to abort an unborn child by her own means up to the moment prior to a natural birth, but a healthcare professional would be breaking the law if they tried to help her do so outside the 24-week limit.
Sir John Hayes
There is a calumny at the heart of this, which is that these new clauses are compatible with the ’67 Act. When breaching an Act of this Parliament ceases to be unlawful, it loses its force and therefore its purpose, and that calumny cannot be allowed to stand on the record.
Harriet Cross
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.
On the one hand, abortion would be decriminalised for women; on the other, restrictions on her ability to access that same procedure in a safe, controlled and supportive setting would remain. We must be careful not to create a law that has unintended and potentially harmful consequences, especially for those it is designed to help, and especially when those who are likely to rely on it are likely to be in a state of stress or distress.
New clause 1 raises many questions. Is it tenable to legalise all but full-term abortions in England and Wales, but not in other parts of the UK? What would be the legal implications if a woman in Gretna travelled 10 miles across the border to Carlisle to have an abortion after the 24-week limit that is in place in Scotland? Under new clause 1, how do we monitor such abortions that occur outside a healthcare setting? How do we ensure that mothers’ physical and mental health is protected and supported? And what happens to the once-delivered foetus, if the abortion is outside a healthcare setting?
As we have heard, new clause 20 goes further than new clause 1 in many respects, so many of the same concerns apply. New clause 106 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would mandate an in-person consultation before a pregnant woman was prescribed medication to terminate a pregnancy. This new clause is not about making abortions harder to access. An abortion should, of course, be readily available to those who need and want it, and of course abortion medication should be easily accessible during the appropriate stages of pregnancy, but this new clause is about the safety of the mother and the unborn child.
Face-to-face appointments are commonplace for patients with a wide range of medications and conditions, particularly when new medications are being prescribed. A private, in-person consultation allows a doctor to be as sure as they can be that the woman is acting of her own informed free will, and ensures that her mental state is assessed and understood. It also reduces as much as possible the likelihood of medication being misused or abused.
Telemedicine, while it has its place, can never be a replacement for the patient-doctor relationship developed during face-to-face appointments. It has serious shortcomings. There have been many cases where abortion medicine has been misused following telemedicine, and there have been many more hospitalisations of women following the use of telemedicine. However, I stress that not all of these cases will be down to misuse; we should all be aware of that. New clause 106 does not attempt to restrict access to abortions, and I would not support it if it did. Instead, it would act as an important safeguard to protect women from emotional trauma and physical harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Let me begin by emphasising that all women in England and Wales can access safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. I also recognise and respect that there are strongly held views across the House on this highly sensitive issue, and I welcome the considered and informed debate we have had today.
The Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. We maintain that it is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, and will allow Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. If it is the will of the House that the criminal law on abortion should change, whether by our exempting pregnant women from the offences or otherwise, the Government would not stand in the way of such change. However, we must ensure coherence between the statute book and any legislation proposed.
It will be helpful if I first set out the relevant law. As hon. Members will know, in England and Wales, the criminal offences relating to abortion must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967, which provide exemptions to the criminal offences. The Act defines the circumstances in which abortions or terminations can legally take place. Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is the offence of administering drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion. It is an offence for a pregnant woman to unlawfully take a drug or use instruments with the intent of procuring her own miscarriage. It is also an offence for another person who has the intent of procuring the miscarriage of a woman, whether or not she is pregnant, to unlawfully administer drugs or use instruments with that intent. It is also an offence under section 59 of the 1861 Act for a person to supply or procure drugs, poison or an instrument that was intended to be used to procure a miscarriage.
The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 deals with acts in the later stages of pregnancies, including late-term abortions in England and Wales. Under section 1 of the 1929 Act, it is an offence for any person to intentionally destroy the life of a child before it is born, if it is capable of being born alive, unless it can be proved that the act was done in good faith and only to preserve the life of the woman.
Turning to the amendments, the purpose of new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), is to disapply criminal offences relating to abortion from a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation. This means that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her pregnancy, regardless of the number of weeks of gestation, including beyond the 24 weeks.
Alex Davies-Jones
I apologise, but I will not. We are really short on time.
It would also not be a criminal offence for a woman to intentionally deceive a registered medical practitioner about the gestation of her pregnancy in order to procure abortion pills by post beyond the 10-week time limit. It would remain an offence for another person, such as a doctor, to do the relevant acts, and for a pregnant woman to do the relevant acts for another woman, unless the provisions of the Abortion Act are applied.
New clause 1 seeks to ensure that a woman cannot commit an offence in relation to her own pregnancy under the law related to abortion, including under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. The phrase “related to abortion” is not defined in the clause but in practice will be limited to these provisions, as there are no other offences that relate to abortion in England and Wales.
It was suggested during the recent Westminster Hall debate on decriminalising abortion, and again today, that the risk with new clause 1 is that it creates a general power for the Secretary of State to amend the Abortion Act 1967 or the relevant criminal legislation relating to abortion. I would like to clarify that new clause 1 does not create such a power, nor do any other provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill. New clause 1 does not grant the Secretary of State additional secondary legislation powers, while clause 166 of the Bill does grant the Secretary of State a regulation-making power in relation to the provisions of the Bill. That can only be exercised to make provisions that are appropriate in consequence of the Bill’s provisions. It would not, for example, give the Secretary of State general powers to make substantive amendments to the Abortion Act 1967 in order to change the rules about abortion, or to amend the Offences Against the Person Act to reintroduce criminal offences, as that would not be consequential to new clause 1.
I turn to new clause 20, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), which would repeal existing criminal offences relating to abortion and concealment of a birth, place a duty on the Secretary of State to implement certain recommendations relating to abortion services, and create regulation-making powers regarding criminal offences relating to abortion.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will not give way.
This is a complex new clause, and I will not address all of its provisions or the policy intentions behind them. However, I will highlight areas where the House may want to consider whether the duties or delegated powers may be unclear or give rise to unintended consequences.
I acknowledge that my hon. Friend’s approach seeks to mirror the model used to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland. However, it is important to recognise that the circumstances in Northern Ireland at the time were markedly different from those in England and Wales. There was no functioning Executive, no provision of abortion services except in the most exceptional circumstances and no equivalent to the Abortion Act 1967, so provision had to be made to create a regime for abortion services. As such, the approach to decriminalising abortion in England and Wales, where the provision and regulation of lawful abortions already exists, needs to reflect the distinct legal context.
New clause 20 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to implement paragraphs 85 and 86 of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women in England and Wales by using the regulation-making powers in subsection (8). The CEDAW report contains recommendations relating to the criminal law on abortion, which would, in so far as they relate to England and Wales, already be addressed by the repealing of the offences through subsections (2) and (4) of the new clause.
The report includes recommendations that go beyond the provision of abortion services, such as on the provision of sexual and reproductive health and education. As I have mentioned, the CEDAW report and its recommendations were developed in the specific context of Northern Ireland and therefore reflected the position there at the time. The position in England and Wales is different, with existing guidance, services and legislation that already address many of the report’s recommendations.
I turn to the criminal law aspect of the new clause. Subsections (2) and (3) would repeal sections 58 to 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929. Repealing those offences would remove criminal liability for a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy and would also decriminalise any other person doing the relevant acts to a pregnant woman, or in relation to the body of a child. For example, there would no longer be a specific offence to cover cases of forced abortion. That would mean that situations in which an individual subjected a pregnant woman to violence with the intention of causing a miscarriage would be dealt with under different offences relating to assaults and bodily harm rather than section 58 of the Infant Life Preservation Act. The moratorium on investigations and prosecutions contained in subsection (4) would discontinue such cases. Therefore, those suspected of forcing a woman to have an abortion before the offences were repealed could not be investigated for those offences.
Subsection (2) seeks to repeal section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which criminalises concealing a birth by disposing of a child’s body after its birth. Unlike sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act, that offence is not limited to abortion-related acts. Repealing it entirely could therefore create a gap in the law regarding non-abortion-related concealment of birth following a child’s death. While I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about investigations under section 60 relating to alleged illegal abortions, a full repeal may have unintended consequences.
I will briefly address a point that my hon. Friend made about existing offences that cover this matter. The offence of perverting the course of justice requires a positive act coupled with an ulterior intent that the course of justice will be perverted. Therefore, it is not necessarily the same and we do not want to provide unintended consequences. It is important to note that subsection (12) grants the Secretary of State regulation-making powers in the light of the repeal of these offences, subject to certain restrictions. The power could be used, for example, to create offences specifically targeted at forced abortions or concealing a birth by disposing of a child’s body. While I do not comment on the policy intent, the House typically exercises its full powers of scrutiny over the introduction of new and serious offences, rather than conferring a power on the Secretary of State to do so through secondary legislation.
New clause 106, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), deals directly with the Abortion Act 1967. The intended purpose of the new clause is to require women to attend an in-person consultation. Section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply to consultations that take place before the medicine is prescribed. Women would therefore continue to have remote consultations for prescription of the medicine, but would then be required to travel to a hospital or clinic for an in-person consultation before being able to self-administer the medicine at home. Alternatively, women could have an in-person consultation to be prescribed the medicine and then the medication could be posted to the women at home. The overall effect of this new clause would mean that no woman could legally have an at-home early medical abortion without an in-person consultation.
In conclusion, if it is the will of Parliament that the law should change, the Government, in fulfilling our duty to ensure that the legislation is legally robust and workable, will work closely with my hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Walthamstow to ensure that their new clauses accurately reflect their intentions and the will of Parliament, and are coherent with the statute book. As I have already stated, the Government take no position. I hope these observations are helpful to the House when considering the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Irrespective of our position on the votes that we have just taken, we have to acknowledge that we have made a major change to abortion law, yet that was on the basis of no evidence sessions, no Committee stage scrutiny, and just 46 minutes of a Back-Bench debate and a winding-up speech by a Minister who refused to take any interventions, when the Chamber was full of one-line debates. If we want to continue like this, can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can improve our rules, so that we do not have this situation in the future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Mayhew, to be clear, nothing has happened that is out of order. Your point is more one of frustration than process and procedure, and it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Business without Debate
Prostate Cancer Treatment
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Joe Biden’s recent diagnosis has to some extent put prostate cancer in the spotlight of late, but it is not just him—there is Stephen Fry, Jools Holland and Robert De Niro. More than 50,000 men in the UK and 1.4 million men worldwide are diagnosed with prostate cancer yearly, which is projected to double by 2040. With one in eight men diagnosed during their life, it is the most common male cancer. More than half of those men are pre-retirement age, such as the cyclist Sir Chris Hoy, who was diagnosed at 48, but 70-plus is the most common age.
My late dad was 69 when he was diagnosed. He left this earth just shy of his 79th birthday in August 2014, so he had 10 years. It is often said that men die with prostate cancer, not of it. With my dad, it spread to bone cancer, but pneumonia was actually the cause of death on the certificate. I miss him every day.
Treatment for prostate cancer has improved dramatically since then. One crucial breakthrough is the development of the drug abiraterone, a Great British success story discovered and initially developed in London at the Institute of Cancer Research. It is a shining example of British science leading the world and revolutionising advanced prostate cancer care.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Will the hon. Member reiterate a question that I have for the Minister? Specifically, given that abiraterone is already approved for use in Scotland and Wales, what action is the Minister taking to ensure that men in England are not disadvantaged in accessing lifesaving cancer treatments?
Dr Huq
The hon. Member reads my mind about the postcode lottery, which I will come to in my list of questions. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is very sympathetic and on the right side.
Abiraterone is now a global drug. Half a million men around the world have had transformed outcomes, improved quality of life and extra years spent with loved ones.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate; she is absolutely right to do so, and I congratulate her on that. She may not be aware that abiraterone is not routinely available in Northern Ireland for men with high-risk hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, unlike in Scotland and Wales. It is primarily approved for men with advanced prostate cancer that has already spread. While it can be accessed through an individual funding request process, it is not a standard first-line treatment option. Does she agree that men in Northern Ireland and right here in England should be able to access treatment that is available in Scotland and Wales?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important Adjournment debate. We have heard from a number of Members who have constituents who are affected or have frustrations with the current system. I met a gentleman called David in the run-up to the general election who has metastatic prostate cancer and is not eligible for abiraterone. He asked me if we would push and do what we could in Parliament to ensure that people such as him could get the drug. He is fortunate and can afford to pay for it privately, but not everyone is in that situation. This is about ensuring that we have equality of access for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to have another look at this issue?
Dr Huq
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that access should be based not on how deep somebody’s pockets are, but on need.
Abiraterone halves the risk of relapse. Each relapse literally costs the NHS millions—the definition of lose-lose. As many Members have pointed out, it is already successfully available on the NHS and routinely funded for use in metastatic cases in England, but sadly there is a catch: abiraterone is not available on the NHS for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer living in England.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this very important debate for her constituents, my constituents and people in the UK. Does she agree that since this issue was last assessed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, there have been significant developments, as has been mentioned by other colleagues, both in the provision of the drug in other nations and the fact that it is now available off-patent, so it is much cheaper to access? That will fundamentally change the cost-benefit analysis that NICE did previously. Does she agree that her constituents and my constituents need this drug just as much as patients in Scotland and Wales who are benefiting from it?
Dr Huq
I totally agree. West London needs the same as the west of Scotland, the west of Wales, and all the other bits of those other nations. Men can access abiraterone on the NHS in Scotland and Wales, but not in England, even with an identical diagnosis. It seems at best anomalous that their postcode, not their prognosis, is determining their treatment, and we all know that the NHS is meant to be free at the point of need.
I would give anything to have had longer with my dad. I was reminded of him when, like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), I had someone come to see me: Peter Treadgold, who came to my advice surgery and pointed out that he is falling between the cracks. He had a long-standing diagnosis, with remission, and he diligently followed all the advice. He was under NHS monitoring for 20 years because he had heightened prostate-specific antigen levels, although he was never actually offered an MRI or ultrasound scan. Last year, his cancer came back, and he was told that he would need hormone and radiation therapy; abiraterone was not offered. Peter is one of the one in three people who get the devastating news that their cancer has come back, and has been denied access to a treatment that could save or extend his life.
The first time I heard of abiraterone was when I met Peter, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, in my dad’s day, it would not have been cost-efficient. However, it is now a generic drug—it has gone off patent—but it is licensed only for metastatic cases. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows well, there is a complicated, convoluted process involved in getting it approved for non-metastatic cases. There is no question about the effectiveness of abiraterone. It has had one of the biggest trials known to mankind, a genuinely world-beating trial. When NHS England’s own clinical priorities advisory group plotted the clinical benefit against the net cost, abiraterone scored highest in that tabulation. It is calculated that two years of abiraterone treatment would halve the death rate for men with locally advanced prostate cancer, but we hear about budgetary challenges. I have written to the Minister and tabled questions, and have been told that NHS England has not identified the recurrent budget to support provision of the drug.
We should look long-term, at the remissions, and at the cost of chemotherapy, hospital appointments and other associated things. Those costs add up. University College London found that abiraterone would pay for itself if it were £11 a day. Do Members know what the NHS is actually paying? Does anyone want to hazard a guess? Oh, we are not doing call and response. Abiraterone costs £2.75 a day, now that it is off patent and has come down in price. That is less than three measly quid to avoid costly relapses, scans, chemo, hospital appointments and everything else—less than three little round ones to improve lives and reduce deaths. As we have heard, only people who can fork out up front for private treatment or private medical insurance currently have that option, and again, our NHS was not meant to be for private profiteering or big pharma drug pushers. People are seeing their pensions and life savings evaporate, and we are in a cost of living crisis. This drug should be universally available.
It took less than one year for abiraterone to be approved for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer in Scotland and Wales. In England, it is now three years and counting, and we still have not had a concrete resolution. Right now, abiraterone is the cheapest and most cost-effective it has ever been, and as the excellent Prostate Cancer UK put it, the postcode lottery must end. Lord Darzi’s independent investigations into the NHS found that the UK had higher cancer mortality rates than other comparable countries, and sadly, progress in diagnosing cancer at stages 1 and 2 is flatlining. Just over half of prostate cancers are caught at an early stage. That falls well short of the NHS target of 75%. I appreciate that Labour has just come into power after 14 years of the Conservative party, so it will take time to fix our health system, but we need it to be more responsive—to act early and rapidly, to use all the tools it can, and to offer preventive rather than after-the-fact care in every case. Abiraterone exemplifies all those things.
I welcome the Chancellor’s 3% real-terms increase in NHS spending to deliver the exciting plan to build an NHS fit for the future. With the 10-year plan coming soon and the national cancer strategy due this autumn, we have a real chance to deliver significant improvements for people living with cancer, so as is customary, I have a list of questions for the Minister. I will incorporate those of my hon. Friends—I think we are all friends here, even if we sit on opposite sides of the Chamber.
First, will the Minister commit to exploring ways of ensuring that additional NHS funding is used to make abiraterone available to all men who need it in England—and in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out? Secondly, will the Minister support the introduction of a national programme of screening for prostate cancer, like those that we have for comparable cancers in the United Kingdom? Thirdly, given the complexity of NHS England’s decision-making processes in relation to the availability of abiraterone—which sound like a right old bureaucratic nightmare—as the functions of NHS England are transferred back to the Department of Health and Social Care, will the Minister take steps to ensure that all decisions about access to medicine, including abiraterone, are timely and transparent? I know that she has had a long career in the NHS, and as I have said, she is on the side of the angels.
Fourthly, will the Minister commit to publishing an equality impact assessment, given the disturbingly disproportionate effect that prostate cancer is having on black men, who are more likely to develop it and to receive a late diagnosis, and less likely to receive the right treatment? I am doing this partly for Dad, who is watching from somewhere up above, but also for the black and minority ethnic men who are implicated here and now. This is the second time that you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I have been talking about health inequalities since Friday, when we discussed assisted dying. You have chaired both debates excellently.
Fifthly, in the light of the lengthy approval process, will the Minister assess the adequacy of the funding formula model—we have NICE and we have the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and it all seems a bit knotty—and consider whether novel pharmaceutical treatments could be produced cost-effectively, especially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, when they come off-patent. I am arguing for simplification in cases in which drugs are already prescribed for limited use and there is a credible case for expanding their application to a generic treatment. We are halfway there; we just need to go that little bit further.
Prostate Cancer UK estimates that 672 men die prematurely each year because we have no access to abiraterone. Each week that this continues, 13 men in England will die from a cancer that could have been treated cheaply had they lived in Scotland or Wales. Labour is the party of the NHS, and a Labour Government introduced the UK’s first dedicated cancer strategy; so let us go for this win-win for all, end the iniquitous, unjust postcode lottery, celebrate the best of British science, and widen access to abiraterone for all those who need it, not just those who can afford it.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for securing the debate, and I thank the other Members who have spoken.
As my hon. Friend has said, more than 50,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year, and one in eight will be diagnosed with it during their lifetime. I commend her for raising an issue that I know is very personal to her, as she has articulated so well. I am sure that her late father is watching her carefully. She was also right to support her constituent Peter by raising this issue, which affects so many men, and to highlight the number of black and minority ethnic men presenting with the disease. That is something on which we have all campaigned very strongly.
Timely and equitable diagnosis and access to innovative medicines for the treatment of prostate cancer are of the utmost importance. To support faster diagnosis, NHS England has redesigned pathways to maximise capacity. We are also aware of very early-stage trials of the use of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection, and we look forward to a formal report on those trials, so that the evidence can be considered carefully.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The effects of prostate cancer have been well noted tonight, as has the number of men who are affected. About 12,000 die from it each year, more than 300 of them in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland should be included in the commissioning, and will she undertake to speak to the Health Minister in Northern Ireland about the issue? Does she also agree that this needs to sit alongside a UK-wide prostate cancer screening programme, targeting in particular people with a family history of the disease?
Karin Smyth
We talk regularly with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, and I am always happy to do so. As the hon. Lady knows, this matter is devolved, so it is a matter for Northern Ireland, and we respect the devolution settlement.
Our elective reform plan, published in January 2025, builds on the investments already made with an ambitious vision for the future of diagnostic testing. This will include more straight-to-test pathways, increasing and expanding community diagnostic centres, and better use of technology. With nearly 170 community diagnostic centres up and running, they can take on more of the growing diagnostic demand in elective and cancer care. We will also deliver additional capacity in 2025-26 by expanding some existing centres and building up to five new ones. We will address the challenges in diagnostic waiting times, providing the CT, MRI and other tests that are needed to reduce the elective and cancer waits.
Members know that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—we have heard a little about it this evening—is an independent body responsible for assessing whether new licensed medicines can be recommended for routine use in England, based on a thorough assessment of their clinical and cost effectiveness. The NHS is legally required to fund NICE recommended medicines, ensuring consistency of access for NHS patients wherever they live in England.
NICE is able to recommend promising new cancer medicines for use through the cancer drugs funds, which supports patient access while real-world evidence is generated to address clinical uncertainties. Through the cancer drugs fund, NHS patients also benefit from access to cancer medicines from the point of positive draft NICE guidance, accelerating access to clinically and cost effective medicines by up to five months. Through this process, many thousands of patients, including patients with prostate cancer, have been able to benefit from effective new treatments at prices that represent value to the NHS.
The drug that is the subject of this debate, abiraterone, is licensed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton said. It is recommended by NICE for use in the treatment of certain types of metastatic prostate cancer, and it is now routinely available to NHS patients in England in line with the NICE recommendation. NHS England has recently put in place an interim commissioning policy that makes abiraterone available for men with high-risk, hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer, pending the outcome of NICE’s update of its negative guidance. I am pleased that this approach was agreed between NICE and NHS England late last year to ensure uninterrupted access to abiraterone for men leaving the STAMPEDE trial.
My hon. Friend raised particular concerns about access to this drug for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. First, it is important to note that abiraterone is not licensed by the MHRA for use in this indication, and it is therefore off-label. NICE does not evaluate the off-label uses of medicines, and the drug is also now off-patent and available generically, which means there is no single manufacturer that could sponsor an MHRA licence application or NICE evaluation. It is therefore for NHS organisations to take decisions on funding based on the available evidence.
NHS England considered abiraterone for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer through its clinical prioritisation process last year. Through this process, NHS England concluded that evidence supported the routine commissioning of the drug in this indication. Approximately 7,000 men per year could be eligible for this drug, and it is estimated that it would cost an additional £20 million per year to fund that.
While, as my hon. Friend said, there may be some cost savings in the pathway from preventing the disease’s progression, these are unlikely to materialise for about five years and would not impact the up-front costs of the £20 million per year for the additional out-patient monitoring and drug cost. I had not heard the figures she outlined, but I will get back to her on some of the questions she asked, and it would be helpful to know where those figures are from.
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to identify the necessary current funding to support the commissioning of abiraterone for this purpose or any other treatments in this prioritisation round. I know that is disappointing for those affected, and I want to acknowledge that this is a really difficult and unusual situation. However, I want to assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the funding position for this treatment does not mean that there are no treatment options. The NICE guideline on prostate cancer recommends the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer with surgery and radiotherapy.
I want to assure hon. Members that NHS England is keeping this position under review, and would reconsider funding for abiraterone for non-metastatic prostate cancer if the funding position changes. Earlier this month, NHS England met Prostate Cancer UK, which shared its financial model of the expected cost impacts. NHS England is reviewing this in more detail, and I encourage it to continue those discussions.
In closing, I recognise how hard it is when patients want access to effective treatments. I also recognise the distress and worry it causes not only for patients, but for their families and friends. The Government are committed to ensuring that we provide access to the most innovative and effective medicines, but it has to be in a way that is sustainable and affordable for the NHS. It is right that NHS England continues to engage with Prostate Cancer UK, and I know that my hon. Friend and other Members will keep an eye on this and similar issues with drugs coming forward. The national cancer plan will seek to improve every aspect of cancer care, to better the experience and outcomes of people with cancer. Our goal is to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer over the next 10 years. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the debate this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 6 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 Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. With your indulgence, before I address the draft order I want to take the opportunity briefly to congratulate the Treasurer of His Majesty’s Household, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside, on being awarded a knighthood in the recent birthday honours list. It is hugely well deserved recognition of a quarter of a century of service, and I am sure that the whole Committee will join me in congratulating him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Driving down money laundering is critical to the Government’s key missions to deliver safer streets and economic growth, and I am determined that the Government will do all they can to bring justice to those seeking to wash their illicit funds through the UK. Close working with the private sector is integral to delivering on that objective. As our first line of defence, the private sector plays a fundamental role both in preventing the UK financial system from being exploited for criminal gain and in detecting suspicious activity where it has occurred.
I am proud that the UK was one of the first countries to establish a financial crime public-private partnership and has set the international standard in this area. Part of a successful public-private partnership is honestly reviewing what has worked in tackling money laundering and what needs to change for us to be more effective. With that objective in mind, and as part of “Economic Crime Plan 2”, the Government, law enforcement and the private sector have worked together to consider how public-private resource can be better directed to maximise our collective impact against the threat.
The draft order is one of the first outputs of that work. It raises the existing financial threshold for two exemptions that apply to principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from £1,000 to £3,000. The uplift in the threshold will enable law enforcement resource to be focused on higher priority reports that provide greater opportunities for asset denial and disruption of criminal activity. It will also free up businesses’ resource to be redirected towards high-value activity that may have a greater impact on the threat. The measure is further expected to reduce the impact on banking customers by reducing instances of legitimate customers being unable to access their accounts, in particular where no further action is taken.
The first exemption applies to acts in operation of an account, such as paying expenses, by deposit-taking bodies, which are essentially banks and building societies, and electronic money and payment institutions. The second exemption applies in the instance of a business in the anti-money laundering regulated sector ending a relationship with a customer and paying away any money or property to the customer. This means that for transactions below the threshold, businesses in the anti-money laundering regulatory sector do not need to submit defence against money laundering suspicious activity reports, known as DAML SARs.
A DAML SAR is submitted to the National Crime Agency by a person proposing to deal with suspected criminal property, which may make them liable for one of the principal money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act. By submitting a DAML, a person can avoid committing one of the principal money laundering offences by obtaining consent, or deemed consent, for the act they propose to carry out—for example, a customer’s transaction to pay their mortgage. The DAML provides information to the UK Financial Intelligence Unit housed in the National Crime Agency and prevents the business from carrying out the activity referenced in the request until the UKFIU gives a consent decision or seven working days pass, after which the business can assume that it has consent.
In 2023, the threshold was raised to £1,000 due to the rising volume of DAMLs and the regulatory burdens on businesses to submit a DAML SAR, as well as burdens on law enforcement to review and the delay to customers, who must often wait seven days for their transaction to be processed. While the £1,000 threshold has likely contributed to a reduction in DAMLs, evidence shows that the UKFIU continues to receive a large number of low-value DAMLs, only a small proportion of which lead to asset denial opportunities.
Between January and December 2024, approximately 23,000 DAMLs relating to transactions between £1,000 and £3,000 were submitted. Of those, only 182 were refused, equating to 0.1% of all assets denied because of DAMLs in that year. To prevent the loss of information, businesses must still submit an information-only suspicious activity report to the UKFIU where they suspect any and all involvement in money laundering. That duty will not be affected by the draft order.
Having, I hope, covered the key points, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Mr Twigg.
One of the most basic principles of law enforcement is that no one should escape the consequences of committing a crime, but it is right that we target the most serious offenders first so that enforcement efforts have maximum impact. It is also right that when we ask businesses to take steps to prevent crime from taking place, those steps are proportionate. We therefore support the measures in the draft order.
Raising the transaction threshold below which businesses are exempted from money laundering offences will mean that more resources can be spent on tackling the most serious examples of money laundering. Given that, as the Minister said, only 0.1% of all transactions between £1,000 and £3,000 were refused in 2024, it is right that we reduce the burden on enforcement agencies at that level.
It is also important, though, that we continue to monitor money laundering at every level. With that in mind, will the Minister please tell us what steps his Department is taking to monitor the impact of these changes on money laundering on transactions below £3,000, and when, if at all, the Government intend to review the threshold again?
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. May I just ask the Minister whether the Government intend to bring in similar thresholds for such things as benefit overpayments?
Dan Jarvis
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, for the constructive way that she has approached the draft order. These are not contentious or party political matters, and it is right that we debate them in that spirit. I am grateful for her support for the measures and I completely agree with her about the importance of ensuring that we target them, and our resource, as effectively as possible.
The shadow Minister asked, entirely reasonably, about monitoring and review. As she might remember from her own time working at the Home Office, there are processes in place to ensure that these activities are kept under very close watch. I can assure her that, following on from the work done by the previous Government, we will continue to keep these matters under very close review.
Given that I have referenced the previous Government, I want to take the opportunity to commend the right hon. Member for Salisbury for the work that he did and the leadership that he showed in this policy area during his time in government. In particular, I thank him for his work to introduce the economic crime levy. I am sure that he knows this, but it is worth repeating that the levy raises around £100 million per year from the anti-money laundering sector, and it has provided extremely valuable and long-term, sustainable resource for funding measures to tackle money laundering. I am grateful to him for the work that he did in government.
I reiterate in response to the shadow Minister that we will monitor these matters on a regular basis. She will understand why I will not say too much about the technical detail of the work that is done to spot suspicious activity that falls beneath the threshold, but I am sure that she will remember from her time in the Home Office that there are mechanisms in place that seek to prevent people from bending or breaking the rules by behaving in a certain way in relation to transactions below the threshold. I think that she knows what I am referring to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised an important point, but I am struggling to remember precisely what it was. Perhaps he will briefly remind me.
Barry Gardiner
Of course. I think we all agree that we should have thresholds that are proportionate and do not involve undue bureaucracy while ensuring that money is not badly spent or, indeed, that money that is spent is recovered where it should not have been spent in the first place. Given that we have proportionality in this area, I wondered whether the Minister could enlighten us whether we are looking to do the same in other areas, such as benefit overpayments.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As a very experienced Member, he will understand that the Home Office is responsible for the Proceeds of Crime Act, and although of course we have conversations with other Departments about other matters, the matter that he mentions is not one that sits within my area of responsibility. No doubt colleagues in the Department that I think he is referring to will listen carefully to his remarks; I am sure that they will be as grateful for them as I am.
I am grateful for all the contributions to the debate. SARs intelligence is a critical tool in our ability to identify, disrupt and recover the money that underpins the most serious and organised crime in the UK. Increasing the threshold to reflect the current landscape is an important step as we seek to improve the effectiveness of the anti-money laundering system, prioritise resources, enable greater disruption of criminal activity and prevent criminals from enjoying the proceeds of their illicit activities. Once again, therefore, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Permanent Post Office in Fakenham
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Please ensure that mobile phones are turned to silent mode. If hon. Members and officials wish to remove their jackets, they have leave to do so.
Clause 22
Consultation of the community clinician
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
New clause 4—General duty to secure sufficient resources for services in the community—
“(1) It is the general duty of integrated care boards to ensure, insofar as is reasonably practical, that services in the community responsible for delivering care, treatment, or detention provisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 and this Act have the necessary resources, including financial support, to meet service demands.
(2) Additional forms of resource may be determined by integrated care boards in consultation with relevant local authorities or health care service providers and may include—
(a) sufficient numbers of trained medical professionals;
(b) purpose-built facilities for patient care;
(c) community services responsible for out-patient care.
(3) Each Integrated Care Board must conduct an assessment of its resources every two years to evaluate its ability to deliver services in the community effectively.
(4) Each Integrated Care Board must publish a report outlining its findings upon completing the assessment in subsection (3). The first reports must be published within one year of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause places a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand on services to ensure that the provisions of the Bill function as intended and to assess and report on this every 2 years.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I will discuss a number of issues concerning community treatment orders and ensuring sufficient resources for community-based care.
Clause 22 will add the community clinician as a third key decision maker for community treatment orders, alongside the responsible clinician and approved mental health professional, ensuring additional professional oversight. Involving the community clinician in the initial request for a community treatment order will improve the planning and implementation of community treatment orders by ensuring good communication between ward and community doctors, aiding continuity of care. It should also help to prevent the inappropriate use of community treatment orders, for instance to free up beds where there are pressures on acute wards.
Making sure that only those who need to be on a community treatment order will be put on one supports the principles behind the reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, including the principles of least restriction, of therapeutic benefit and of treating the person as an individual. It should also positively impact the racial disparities that have been seen in the use of community treatment orders. The community clinician’s opinion is important when a patient is under a CTO, because the clinician may have a better understanding of the patient’s progress, including how well the patient is engaging with their treatment while in the community. Their insights are valuable in deciding whether the patient should be discharged to a community treatment order or recalled to the hospital if their symptoms worsen. Those who are supporting the patient in the community should be a part of the decision of whether the restrictions of the CTO are still required.
I turn to clause 23. In addition to reducing the number of people placed on CTOs, as has been referred to in relation to clauses 6 and 22, we aim to provide greater protection to those subject to them. CTOs extend the coercive powers of the Mental Health Act into people’s lives beyond hospital. CTOs should be used only when necessary, with conditions tailored to the individual rather than applying blanket restrictions. Currently, some CTO conditions display an overreach of power, such as requiring abstinence from alcohol even if this is unrelated to the person’s mental health condition. The clause will remove the ability of the responsible clinician to apply conditions to a person’s community treatment order which are appropriate but not necessary, giving a higher threshold for conditions to be set.
The clause will allow the mental health tribunal to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsider the necessity of conditions specified in a CTO if the tribunal determines that the patient is not yet suitable for discharge. For example, while not set out in the Bill, the tribunal may use this power if it finds the conditions imposed in a CTO to be possibly disproportionate, overly restrictive, lacking clinical benefit or not treating the person as an individual.
New clause 4 would place a general duty on integrated care boards in England to ensure that community services have the necessary resources to meet demand, and to report on this every two years. This duty to commission local services based on local need is already placed upon integrated care boards by the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. An integrated care board must arrange for the provision of services as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it is responsible. Integrated care boards and their mental health trusts are required to prepare a joint forward plan that describes how the ICB will arrange for NHS services to meet their population’s physical and mental health needs. For that reason, we do not think the new clause is necessary, and it could place a disproportionate burden on ICBs and mental health providers. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Winchester will be satisfied not to press it. I commend clauses 22 and 23 to the Committee.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Sir Desmond, especially on such a warm day. I hope that there is not too much hot air in the Committee to keep us even warmer.
Clause 22 will introduce a series of important amendments to the operation of community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. The clause has the stated aim of strengthening clinical safeguards and ensuring continuity of care between hospital and community settings. The Opposition support these goals in principle.
Let me set out the current legal position. At present, decisions to place a person on a CTO require two professional inputs: the patient’s responsible clinician and an approved mental health professional. The responsible clinician can vary, suspend, recall or revoke the order, often with no statutory obligation to consult the clinician who will be managing the patient’s care in the community.
Clause 22 will change that. It introduces the new role of the community clinician—defined as the approved clinician who will oversee the patient’s care in the community—and requires their involvement at key decision points in the life of a CTO. Specifically, it requires a written statement from the community clinician that the CTO criteria are met, where they are not the responsible clinician. It obliges the responsible clinician to consult the community clinician before varying conditions, recalling or revoking a CTO, unless such consultation would cause unreasonable delay. It also includes the community clinician in the process of renewing a CTO, again via a written statement.
These are not insignificant changes. They mark a shift towards multidisciplinary accountability and a greater emphasis on the continuity of care between in-patient and community settings. The Opposition strongly support both principles. However, there are several points that I would like to probe constructively, and I hope the Minister will respond in the spirit of improving what is clearly a well-intentioned clause.
First, the term “unreasonable delay” appears multiple times in the clause as an exception to the duty to consult the community clinician, but I cannot see it defined in the Bill or in the explanatory notes. Could the Minister clarify what constitutes “unreasonable delay” in practice? Will guidance be issued to ensure consistency across trusts and clinicians? We must ensure that this exception does not swallow the rule or become a loophole in time-sensitive situations.
Secondly, what happens when clinicians disagree? The clause requires the agreement of the community clinician in writing before a CTO can be made, but it is silent on what happens when there is disagreement between the responsible clinician and the community clinician. This is not a hypothetical concern; differing clinical views are common and can be a healthy part of multidisciplinary practice. Could the Minister confirm whether there is a proposed resolution mechanism where clinicians differ? Would the decision default to a tribunal or a second opinion, or is the CTO simply not made?
Thirdly, as the Minister has mentioned, on the operational readiness to implement this clause, the new duties on community clinicians are not trivial. They are being asked to produce written statements, engage in formal consultations and be available to advise on time-sensitive decisions such as recalls and condition changes. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that a workforce impact assessment has been or will be conducted? Will there be investment in community mental health staffing and digital infrastructure to ensure that this duty is workable?
Fourthly, I want to raise the issue of handover and role clarity. The clause will introduce a new statutory role—the community clinician—but patients often transition rapidly between settings. There may be uncertainty about who holds that responsibility at a given time. Will guidance ensure that community clinicians are formally designated and that responsibilities are clearly recorded at the point of discharge?
I want to end on a constructive note. Clause 22 is a step in the right direction. It reflects many of the recommendations of the independent review of the Mental Health Act, including the emphasis on least restriction and on therapeutic benefit. I encourage the Government to consider defining or clarifying unreasonable delay in regulations or guidance, introducing a clear process for resolving professional disagreement, and committing to publish a plan detailing workforce support, guidance and digital infrastructure to ensure that this takes place.
Clause 23, which is linked to clause 22, will introduce two important amendments to the operation of community treatment orders under the Mental Health Act 1983. As things stand, section 17B(2) allows a responsible clinician to attach conditions to a CTO if they are necessary or appropriate, to ensure the patient receives treatment, to prevent risk to health or safety or to ensure engagement with services. Such conditions can include where the person lives, their attendance at appointments and even lifestyle restrictions such as abstaining from alcohol or drugs. However, we know that these conditions can be seen as coercive. Patients often feel that breaching them means automatic recall to hospital. In practice, some CTO conditions may drift toward overreach rather than clinical necessity.
The clause responds to these concerns in two ways. Subsection (1) will remove the words “or appropriate” from section 17B(2), meaning that CTO conditions must now be strictly necessary, not just advisable or convenient. The Opposition support this narrowing of the threshold. It sends a clear message that CTO conditions must be clinically justified, proportionate and tailored to the individual’s needs. However, I ask the Minister how clinicians will be guided in applying the new “necessary” test. Will the code of practice be updated with examples and scenarios? Crucially, what measures will be taken to ensure that patients are clearly informed that a breach of a CTO condition, in itself, is not automatic grounds for recall?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Taking a step back to my hon. Friend’s point about “necessary”, is he concerned, as I am, that it is not clear to those responsible what “necessary” means? We could open ourselves up to potential legal challenges and disputes, which would give lawyers lots of money but would have no benefit for the patients.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Some later clauses try to address a problem where a patient was consenting to a community order, but the restrictions were so tight that it worked out as deprivation of liberty. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that knowing what is necessary is important to provide a clearly defined structure for the patient. Patients worry that if they breach that protocol, they will be automatically recalled. That might prevent them from breaching the conditions in the first place, but on the other hand it is a sword of Damocles above them. In no way does that create a beneficial therapeutic environment for them.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid we have to suspend the sitting, as the sound is unworkable. I am assured that a sound engineer is on the way.
9.37 am
Sitting suspended.
Dr Evans
Brevity is an important skill that you have exemplified in this House for many years, Sir Desmond, so I will not subject the Committee again to matters that I have already covered.
I ask again the question that I posed just before the suspension: how will clinicians be guided in applying the new “necessary” test? Will the code of practice be updated with examples and scenarios? Crucially, what measures will be taken to ensure that patients are clearly informed that a breach of CTO conditions is not, in itself, an automatic ground for recall? That concern has come across in evidence and is a long-standing source of misunderstanding and mistrust, as has been highlighted in cases and in the Wessely report.
Clause 23(2) will insert new subsection (3B) into section 72 of the Mental Health Act, giving mental health tribunals the power to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsider whether a CTO condition is necessary, even when they do not discharge the patient. That is a welcome enhancement of patient rights. Currently, if a tribunal decides not to discharge a patient, it has no power to challenge potentially excessive conditions. The clause strikes a useful middle ground, offering oversight without overturning clinical decisions. Having said that, will there be any requirement for the responsible clinician to formally respond to the tribunal’s recommendations? Without such a duty, there is a risk that recommendations may be quietly disregarded and the benefit of the provision may be undermined.
Clause 23 is a positive and proportionate reform, but to strengthen its practical impact I suggest that the Government consider updating the code of practice to clarify what constitutes a “necessary” condition under section 17B of the Mental Health Act; introducing a duty to respond to tribunal recommendations under proposed new section 72(3B), with a short time limit and a written explanation if the recommendation is rejected; and providing clear information to patients.
New clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, seeks to place a general duty on ICBs to ensure that sufficient resources are available for community-based mental health services, particularly in the context of implementing provisions under the Mental Health Act. It speaks to a concern that many Committee members will have heard time and again from patients, practitioners and families alike: that the success of any reform to the Mental Health Act will ultimately rest on the capacity of community services to deliver. We know the reality: patients can be discharged to under-resourced settings or subject to CTOs that depend on clinicians who may be overstretched or unavailable. Clause 22 will rightly expand the role of community clinicians in CTO decisions, but that works only if they exist, are available and have the time and tools to engage meaningfully.
I acknowledge that new clause 4 identifies a genuine structural risk in the way in which we approach reform, and I commend colleagues for raising it, but should it sit in primary legislation? I am not so sure. I have some questions for the hon. Member for Winchester not about the intention of the new clause, but about the appropriateness and practicality of placing such a duty in primary legislation. Primary legislation is best used where duties are clear, enforceable and universal. The duty proposed in the new clause, although admirable, is qualified by the words
“insofar as is reasonably practical”,
which reflects the reality that integrated care boards do not control all the levers of workforce, capital investment or even, in many cases, service design.
With that in mind, I ask the hon. Member the following questions. What mechanism would be used to enforce the duty? If an ICB fails to meet the duty, what would the consequences be? Would the duty not create legal ambiguity or even the potential for judicial review where service users feel that resources are inadequate, or even where the ICB has acted reasonably in difficult circumstances? Furthermore, how would the duty interact with the existing statutory duties on ICBs under the Health and Care Act 2022, including the duties around health inequalities and integration?
A stronger element of the new clause, which merits closer consideration, is the assessment and publication of findings on local community mental health capacity. This kind of transparent, data-led accountability could be an effective tool not only for Parliament and regulators, but for local patients and advocacy groups. Perhaps that element could be taken forward in secondary legislation as part of the updated NHS England commissioning guidance. The Minister will forgive me, but I am not sure whether such a tool already exists, so perhaps he will address that point.
Does the Department plan to require ICBs to assess and report on community mental health capacity in the light of the new duties being created by the Bill? Could there be scope for a reporting duty to be included in regulations or guidance, even if a general resourcing duty is not placed in primary legislation? The Bill refers to commissioning, and under earlier clauses we have talked about dynamic registers. Will the Minister set out whether the issue is covered here or in another way?
We cannot ignore the resource dimension, so I am grateful to colleagues for pressing the Committee to address it. However, we must be careful about the tools we use, what we write into law, and what we deliver through planning, commissioning and political will. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Winchester and the Minister in response to my questions.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I welcome the changes proposed in clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 seeks to amend the Mental Health Act to require the community clinician responsible for overseeing the patient’s care as a community patient to be involved in decisions regarding the use and operation of community treatment orders.
While I was practising as a mental health professional, I was personally involved in many community treatment orders and in recalling patients to hospital. Although I acknowledge the concerns raised by various charities and members of the Committee about the overuse of community treatment orders and restrictions on patients, such orders have many benefits. As the Minister has highlighted, they help to release the pressure on in-patient settings. They also help patients to live in a home environment: without such provision, some patients would have to stay in hospitals for longer, which can be more restrictive than being in the community.
The Committee needs to understand the kinds of patient who are often considered for community treatment orders. These patients are already well known to mental health services. They may have a long-term serious mental illness and may have to take medication continuously. More often, they are on regular injections of what is called depot medication; mental health professionals administer such medication either once a month or once every three months. Community treatment orders enable clinicians to make sure that patients receive the medication they need, so that they do not relapse and so they can have a good quality of life.
By introducing an additional professional check on whether the patient really needs the support of a community treatment order, and by requiring more evidence that the patient needs the support of the community treatment order to get better, clause 22 will adopt two of the four principles of treatment proposed in Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review, namely the principle of least restriction and the principle of therapeutic benefit.
Dr Evans
The Committee is very lucky to have the experience and expertise of someone who has used community treatment orders in the field. Will the hon. Member address my point about clinical conflict? We are introducing two new people: a community clinician and a responsible clinician. Has he seen any difficulties in practice with a difference of opinion between clinicians? How were they resolved? Does he see any way in which the clause could create or resolve a problem? My worry is that there is no clear resolution that would deal with discrepancies. I would love to know what is happening at the moment, as the law stands, in the hon. Member’s clinical experience.
Sojan Joseph
I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention. Healthy conflicts between professionals can be useful and can be used as a reassurance to people who are concerned about the overuse of CTOs. However, capacity can sometimes be an issue, especially in community settings, an issue that new clause 4 addresses.
It is also important to understand that mental health services have changed over the years. The consultant who treats the patient in hospital may not know much about them or how they are in the community. In the past, all those patients were followed by a care co-ordinator—not necessarily a mental health psychiatrist, but a mental health nurse or social worker who followed the patient throughout their journey and kept an eye on them. We do not have enough capacity these days, so nobody is following the patient. A community treatment order helps them to have at least minimum contact when they have to go and see a patient to administer medication. I support that conflict—sometimes it can be very healthy—but I also acknowledge that we need more capacity in the community.
Clause 22 makes a new distinction between a patient’s responsible clinician with overall responsibility for them, including in hospital, and a community clinician with the responsibility for the patient in the community. It will impose specific duties on the community clinician where they are not the responsible clinician. For example, subsection (2) will amend section 17A(4) of the Mental Health Act to require that where the responsible clinician is not the clinician who will have care for the patient in the community after their discharge, that community clinician must also agree in writing that the community treatment order criteria are met. That will ensure continuity of care of the patient from the hospital into the community, and it will have the added benefit of additional professional oversight in respect of the need for a community treatment order. That is to be warmly welcomed.
I also highlight subsection (4), on the power to recall a community patient to hospital. That will mean that if the community clinician is not the responsible clinician, the community clinician will still need to be consulted before a patient can be recalled under the community treatment order, unless such a consultation would lead to an unreasonable delay. That seems an entirely welcome and sensible reform. In some cases, an unreasonable delay may not be helpful, because some patients need to have their medication at regular intervals. For example, a patient on clozapine who misses their medication for three or four days in a row may have to restart their whole treatment regime, which will mean an even longer in-patient admission process.
Subsection (6) will require a community clinician to make a statement in writing, if they are not the responsible clinician, in support of the renewal of a patient’s community treatment order, if that is the conclusion of the responsible clinician. Getting written confirmation from the community clinician who is intimately involved in the patient’s care that a renewal of the community treatment order is both necessary and appropriate and is the correct thing to do. Once again, it is about ensuring that a further professional opinion is considered; it is also about checking whether the patient still needs the support of a community treatment order.
Clause 23 will make changes in relation to the conditions that a person subject to a community treatment order may be required to follow. It will amend section 17B of the Mental Health Act so that conditions can be imposed only if they are “necessary”. This is a simple and welcome update from the current wording, “necessary or appropriate”.
Clause 23’s second modernisation is to give the tribunal a new power to
“recommend that the responsible clinician reconsider whether a condition…in the community treatment order is necessary”.
This would apply when the tribunal has decided not to discharge a patient completely from a community treatment order, but has come to the conclusion that not all its conditions are required. Once again, this is a welcome reform and is in line with the principle of therapeutic benefit. Some conditions put on patients can be seen as restrictive: for example, if a condition states that patient cannot use alcohol or illicit drugs, the clinicians will be looking at whether the patient’s use of alcohol or illicit drugs has an impact on their mental state or on their non-compliance with treatment. That is very important. I welcome the changes in clause 23.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for their comments on Liberal Democrat new clause 4.
This is another good example of how, although we are aware that it has laudable aims, the Bill will fail without the supporting infrastructure. As everyone will be aware, community mental health services are among the issues that generate the most emails and correspondence—certainly in Winchester, where young people especially are struggling to access mental health care. In that context, we are alarmed that mental health spending has fallen as a share of overall health spending in the last financial year. That has been coupled with the decision to drop a number of mental health targets, including targets for the number of people receiving mental health interventions such as talking therapy, and the target to ensure that 75% of people with a severe mental health illness receive an annual physical check. Priority has not been given to the services necessary to deliver better mental health care.
For the Bill to make a meaningful difference, the Government must ensure that community mental health care services receive the investment that they need to fulfil their obligations under the Bill—I know that that is a bit of a circular argument—and reduce the overwhelming pressure on in-patient services.
There is also the impact on schools, police services and families. When I went out with the police in Winchester not long ago, they told me that between 40% and 50% of their time is spent dealing with people who have a mental health issue in some capacity. The lack of community mental health care is not just a resource burden on the health service; a lot of our other services are also affected.
Dr Evans
The hon. Member rightly talks about resources and about the cuts as a proportion—although small, it is a cut in NHS spending. The last Conservative Government brought in the mental health investment standard to try to ensure parity between physical health and mental health in investment so that, regardless of how big the pot was, mental health was prioritised. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a concern that that could be slipping under this Government? Does he agree that that needs to be addressed in the context of the community provision that we are discussing?
Dr Chambers
I broadly agree. We were really heartened that in the King’s Speech, the Government said that mental health needs to be treated as seriously as physical health. There are many reasons to join a political party but, given my long history of working in mental health charities, one major reason for joining the Lib Dems was that they had been saying that for years. I was pleased to hear that in the King’s Speech too, but we have to ensure that the percentage of spend on mental health does not slip in proportion to other very important resources.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I think we are all agreed that, in order to implement the changes to the Bill, we need investment in mental health services, particularly community mental health services, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Labour Government have kept the mental health investment standard, ensuring that there is sufficient and increasing investment in mental health in this country?
Dr Chambers
I hope that that is the case. I know that is the aim, but I suppose we will see in four, five or six years’ time what the mental health resources are. No one aims to underfund these services, but the demand on them changes and they need to be resilient. Darzi said that in April 2024 there were 1 million people on mental health waiting lists, and we know that some children wait 15 months, so we must not just maintain the current investment standard, but try to catch up on the huge backlog, which will not change unless we reform the system or invest in more staff and resources.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—mental health services are in a very bad place—but does he agree that the Government have already announced investment in mental health specialists in all schools, and in mental health crisis centres? I have no doubt that once the 10-year plan for the NHS comes out, there will be an even clearer path for how we tackle mental health issues.
Dr Chambers
I am really looking forward to the 10-year plan and reading about how it will improve mental health. We shared Labour’s manifesto commitments to mental health practitioners in each school and mental health hubs, so we certainly support that.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made some very good points and said that this proposal should possibly not be in primary legislation. I accept that integrated care boards do not have control over how every part of the service is delivered, so I am happy not to press the new clause to a vote, but I think the second part, which says that integrated care boards should have a duty to assess and report on the resource needed to meet the demands on services every two years, is important.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to speak to clauses 22 and 23 and to Liberal Democrat new clause 4.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, the Opposition support clauses 22 and 23 generally. Clause 22 addresses the concern that community clinicians—essentially, those responsible for overseeing a patient’s care outside hospital—have historically had limited formal input into decisions about community treatment orders, even though they are central to the patient’s ongoing care. It ensures that community clinicians not only are consulted but, in some cases, must provide written agreement before key decisions are made. It aims to improve continuity of care, ensure decisions reflect the realities of community-based treatment, and reduce inappropriate and poorly co-ordinated use of CTOs.
The benefits of the clause are obvious, but they are worth restating. Clearly, it improves the continuity of care and ensures that clinicians with direct knowledge of the patient’s community care are involved in those key decisions. It enhances safeguards, adding an additional layer of professional oversight before coercive measures are imposed or suggested. It promotes collaboration by encouraging joint decision making between the hospital-based and community-based clinicians, and it reduces the risk of inappropriate CTOs by ensuring they are used only when genuinely appropriate and supported by those delivering care.
However, I ask the Minister to touch on three points. First, requiring a written agreement or consultation could delay urgent decisions if not managed efficiently, so will he explain how, under the clause, any potential delay—a disagreement or just administrative inertia—can be removed to ensure treatment is not delayed?
That moves me on to the administrative burden. Clearly, the clause adds a level of complexity and requires more documentation and co-ordination. Although I understand that that is a necessary outcome, I would again be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how to ensure effective and speedy implementation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, the ambiguity in the roles of the two clinicians may create confusion or disputes over responsibilities if they are not clearly defined or agreed. My reading of the clause is that there is no such clear definition; will the Minister look to provide one through other agencies, or will he put something into the clause in Committee or later in the Bill’s proceedings?
Clause 23, on the conditions of community treatment orders, addresses the concerns that the threshold for imposing conditions on community treatment orders has been too low, allowing conditions that may be clinically unnecessary or overly restrictive. By removing the “appropriate” test, the clause will tighten the legal standard to ensure that only necessary conditions are imposed.
Additionally, the clause will empower tribunals to play a more active role in scrutinising CTO conditions by allowing them to recommend that clinicians review specific conditions, even if the patient is not discharged. This reflects the Bill’s broader aim of enhancing patient rights and removing unnecessary restrictions.
The clause is a welcome addition. It will ensure that CTO conditions are imposed only when strictly necessary, meaning that there are stronger safeguards, and it will enhance the role of tribunals in protecting patient rights without requiring full discharge. It will reduce clinical overreach by preventing the use of overly broad or vague conditions that may not be clinically justified.
However, as with the previous clause, I have some questions. First, the tribunal power is limited in that it can only recommend, not require, the reconsideration of conditions. Is that the intention, or will the Minister strengthen the clause at some point to ensure that the tribunal can require a reconsideration of conditions? If he will not, what issues does he see arising from there not being a reconsideration?
Secondly, as I mentioned in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, I have a concern about the potential ambiguity in the shift from “appropriate” to “necessary” leading to uncertainty or dispute over interpretation. As we touched on in relation to other clauses, clinicians will need additional guidance or training to apply the revised standard consistently. Where will that revised training and guidance be located, and what is the timeframe for its implementation? We need to ensure that all clinicians are fully trained and ready to use this new power.
I will briefly touch on new clause 4, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because although I understand that the hon. Member for Winchester may not press it, somebody else might. It would place a general duty on integrated care boards to ensure that services in the community have the necessary level of resource to meet demand such that the provisions of the Bill function as intended, and to assess and report on this every two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth mentioned, the Opposition generally support the overall aims of the new clause, but as ever, there are some issues with the detail, so I have five questions for the hon. Member for Winchester if he responds, or for the Minister to answer in his summing up.
First, if we imposed a statutory duty on ICBs to ensure sufficient resources for the CTOs, what mechanisms would there be to monitor and enforce compliance? Secondly, what would be the consequences if an ICB failed to meet this duty? Would there be formal accountability or a sanction process? Thirdly, how would the duty interact with existing NHS budgetary constraints and competing priorities? Would it become a statutory obligation with no clear means of redress if unmet? Fourthly, could the duty set a precedent whereby Parliament mandates resource guarantees without providing additional central funding? Finally, what constitutes “sufficient” resources in the context of the CTOs? Who defines that standard, and it is defined locally or nationally?
Stephen Kinnock
The term “unreasonable delay” is subject to review by the courts, and further guidance will be given in the code of practice. On what happens if the responsible clinician and the community clinician disagree, the addition of a third decision maker is not about overruling the responsible clinician, who continues to have overall responsibility for the patient on the community treatment order. Including the community clinician at the point of putting someone on a community treatment order helps to ensure continuity of care for the patient. Involving the community clinician in other decisions around the community treatment order, particularly recall, revocation, renewal and discharge, means they can provide an additional insight into the patient’s status while in the community.
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the clarification. Does it mean that, in essence, there will be a hierarchy, so the responsible clinician is above the community clinician and trumps them? If a community treatment order cannot be signed off, it does not exist. I want to explore that angle; is that what the Minister is suggesting?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, the responsible clinician has primacy.
On the workforce impact, our impact assessment, which was published alongside the Bill, sets out the additional hours of required clinician activity. We will invest in implementing these reforms.
On the meaning of the word “necessary”, we will provide further guidance in the code of practice to provide for a range of scenarios to help to clarify necessary conditions, as well as to clarify that failure to meet those conditions should not always result in recall to hospital.
On the requirement for a responsible clinician to respond to recommendations, we considered giving the tribunal the power to change or remove conditions on a person’s community treatment order. However, the outcome of our stakeholder engagement was that tribunal colleagues did not consider that it was appropriate for them to make clinical judgments, for example whether a condition is of clinical benefit. Providing the power to recommend that the responsible clinician reconsiders the conditions allows the tribunal to provide additional scrutiny but also allows for clinical discretion in decision making.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon asked about training. The training plan will be in the first written ministerial statement.
On where the terms are defined, clause 10 defines responsible clinician and clause 22 defines community clinician. We will define the distinction between the roles in the code of practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Nominated person
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 54 to schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Where the patient has not attained the age of 16 years, a nominated person must have parental responsibility for the patient.”
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.
Amendment 55 to schedule 2, page 80, line 13, after “2(2))” insert
“, has parental responsibility for the patient (see paragraph 2(3))”.
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Schedule 2.
Clauses 25 to 28 stand part.
Stephen Kinnock
I will discuss a number of issues concerning the topic of the nominated person, one of the Bill’s key reforms. I will first address clause 24 and schedule 2, which seek to replace the current nearest relative provisions with the nominated person, chosen by the patient, who can protect their rights when they are detained. The independent review found the nearest relative provision to be outdated and inappropriate. It allocates someone based on a hierarchical list, which does not reflect modern families and could result in someone unfamiliar or potentially risky to the patient being given the role.
We have ensured that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect patients as well as to enable choice. A health or social care professional or an advocate must witness the nomination and confirm in writing that the nominee meets the criteria and that no undue pressure has been put on the patient. Children and young people with the relevant capacity or competence can choose their own nominated person. We expect this will be their parent or guardian, but sometimes a step-parent or other relative over 18, without parental responsibility, may be more suitable to protect a patient’s rights. Safeguards will be put in place to support children in making this choice.
If a patient of any age lacks capacity or competence to make a nomination, an approved mental health professional will appoint a nominated person on their behalf. For children under 16, this will be someone with parental responsibility, including the local authority if the child is subject to a care order. This appointment is temporary until the patient has capacity or competence to make their own appointment.
For all patients, the responsible clinician or approved mental health professional can temporarily overrule the use of a particular nominated person’s power, for example to discharge the patient, if the patient is likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to themselves or others. A nominated person can be removed by the county court if deemed unsuitable—for example, if they misuse their powers or neglect the patient’s welfare or the public interest. Anyone with an interest in the patient’s welfare, such as their parents, can apply to the court. The Bill extends the nominated person safeguard to some restricted part III patients, but their nominated person’s powers will be limited, as appropriate, in the interests of public safety and criminal justice.
Amendments 54 and 55 would require nominated persons for patients under 16 to have parental responsibility for the child, whether chosen by the child or appointed for them. The Bill currently requires this if the child lacks competence to appoint their own nominated person. However, where a child has competence to decide, we think it is right that they can choose the person to represent their interests. That view was supported by the majority of respondents to the White Paper consultation on reform of the Mental Health Act, and it is in keeping with the principles of choice, autonomy and treating the person as an individual.
Like the current “nearest relative” provision, which the nominated person will replace, the amendments do not take into account the greater diversity of modern family structures—for example, where a step-parent may play a vital role in a young person’s life but does not have formal parental responsibility. Our engagement with children and young people during the development of the Bill suggests that the vast majority will appoint a parent as their nominated person. However, we think having choice is important to prevent children from having to have a nominated person who may not engage with the role or act in accordance with their best interests, just because they have formal parental responsibility.
Where children have competence to choose their own nominated person, a health or social care professional, or advocate, will be required to witness the nomination and confirm in writing that the nominated person is over 18 and suitable to take up the position. Regardless of nominated person status, parents should be involved in a child’s care and treatment, and they will retain their legal rights under parental responsibility. Safeguards are in place to allow for the overruling and displacement of the nominated person if they are behaving in a way that is not in the child or young person’s best interests.
Government amendments 40 and 41 will remove paragraph 11(3) to 11(5) of schedule 2 from the Bill, as it is unnecessary to specify in legislation which person with parental responsibility the approved mental health professional must appoint as nominated person for an under 16-year-old. A prescriptive list of who an approved mental health professional must appoint for a child under 16 may prevent a more suitable adult from being chosen as the nominated person. The Bill states that for under-16-year-olds lacking competence, an approved mental health professional must appoint a parent, or whoever has parental responsibility, to be the child’s nominated person. This would include consideration of special guardians and child arrangement orders.
The Government do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person, as the child arrangement order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. For example, the parent might struggle with their own health issues, but that does not necessarily mean that they would not be an effective nominated person. The situation is different in the case of a care order because the local authority is being given lead parental responsibility. We have engaged with the Children’s Commissioner on that point.
If there is no suitable person with parental responsibility willing to act, the approved mental health professional must take into account the patient’s past and present wishes and feelings, so far as reasonably ascertainable, when deciding who to appoint. We will establish an expert taskforce to support the development of the statutory code of practice to provide clear guidance for professionals involved in the nominated person appointment process for children and young people.
Clause 25 will require the approved mental health professional to consult the nominated person before they make an application for admission for treatment or guardianship. This is an existing right for the nearest relative. However, currently if the nearest relative exercises one of their powers, such as the ability to block admission, but the professional believes their objection is unreasonable, the only means of overruling them is to remove or displace them as the nearest relative. This can leave patients without someone to represent their interests during detention.
Clause 25 will allow the approved mental health professional to make use of the existing barring order to temporarily overrule the nominated person, if the patient would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or themselves if their admission was blocked. This is a well-established process. Although the nominated person can continue to represent the patient in other ways, they can still be displaced by the court from the role entirely if their actions indicate they are unsuitable for the role—for example, if they are repeatedly objecting to admission without considering the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public. Approved mental health professionals can continue to use that process.
Clause 26 will transfer the nearest relative provisions relating to the power to order discharge of a patient to the new nominated person role. The power can be temporarily overruled by a responsible clinician if they think that the patient’s discharge would result in danger to themselves or others. It is a well-established process that allows for clinical discretion, but means that the nominated person can continue to represent the patient’s rights in other ways. Clause 26 also reduces from six months to three months the time period during which the nominated person cannot make another order for discharge. That reflects the changes in detention periods under clause 29.
Clause 27 will give the nominated person a new power to object to the use of a community treatment order. We also recognise, however, the importance of protecting patients and the public, so if the responsible clinician is concerned that without a community treatment order, there would be a risk of danger to the patient or others, they can overrule the nominated person’s objection. Those changes will help both to reduce the number of inappropriate community treatment orders and to ensure that safeguards are in place for patient safety and public protection.
Finally, clause 28 provides that before deciding to transfer a patient, the person responsible for taking that decision must consult the patient’s nominated person, unless consultation is not reasonably practicable or would involve unreasonable delay. The nominated person will not be able to object to a transfer, because there may be good reasons for transferring a patient—for example, if a different trust can provide better care, such as a specialist eating disorder unit. Consulting the nominated person, however, means that they are aware of the reasons for transfer and how it will benefit the patient. That will help the nominated person to remain actively involved in protecting patients’ rights and kept informed about a patient’s care and treatment.
Dr Evans
I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate on clauses 24 to 28. I will then turn to Government amendments 40 and 41 and to amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).
Clauses 24 to 28 represent a significant reform to the Mental Health Act 1983. They seek a shift from the traditional concept of a nearest relative to giving patients more control by allowing them to nominate a person to act on their behalf. Clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reform, establishing the role of a nominated person as the patient’s chosen individual to take over certain rights and responsibilities previously held by the nearest relative. It represents a fundamental change from a fixed family-based system to one centred on patient choice and autonomy.
Currently, the nearest relative, often by blood relation, holds a range of statutory powers under the Mental Health Act, regardless of the quality of their relationship with the patient. The clause will enable patients, especially adults, to nominate a trusted person—a family member, friend or advocate—who can act in their best interests. That is a progressive and patient-focused change relating to modern social realities, where family ties are complex and a biological relative is not always the best supporter.
Empowering patients to select their nominated person can enhance trust, improve communication and ultimately lead to better care outcomes. It does, however, raise pressing questions. For children and young people, particularly those aged 16 and 17, who gain legal capacity to nominate, what safeguards ensure that parental concerns and children’s welfare remain adequately considered? How will disputes between nominated persons and relatives, or between the nominated person and clinicians, be resolved? Part of that might be addressed in Government amendments 40 and 41, but I am keen to understand a little more. What training and oversight will ensure that nominated persons understand their duties and, importantly, their boundaries? Finally, for a patient who does not or cannot nominate someone, will the nearest relative still have a role, and how will that be managed?
Clause 25, on applications for admission or guardianship, builds on clause 24. It will require the approved mental health professional to consult the nominated person before making applications for admission or guardianship, except where consultation is not reasonably practicable or would cause unreasonable delay. It will also allow the nominated person to object to such applications, requiring a barring report from the approved mental health professional if an objection is made.
The clause will formalise the nominated person’s involvement at a critically early stage of the intervention, ensuring that their voice can influence decisions that deeply affect the patient. The power to object introduces an important check, though it is balanced by the professional’s ability to override objections on the grounds of safety. The Opposition agree with that, but there are still some questions. How will professionals navigate conflicts between their clinical judgment and objections by the nominated person? Will there be clear guidance to avoid delays that could jeopardise patients or public safety?
Gregory Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive analysis of the provisions under discussion. Does he understand amendments 54 and 55 to mean that, although there would be a narrowing of who can be chosen as the nominated person, there would still be some flexibility for the child to choose? Does he have any concerns about a situation in which a minor—someone under the age of 16—may, for whatever reason, choose somebody who the health professionals believe is not the most appropriate person, and does he have any sympathy with the idea that, given a parent has responsibility for the child in every other aspect of their life, the parent should have that same responsibility in this context?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend has identified the nub of the issue, and his intervention leads me on to an example that demonstrates the problems that we are talking about. I have chosen to debate these provisions in the order shown on the selection list because I wish to understand whether the Minister believes that Government amendments 40 and 41 will deal some of the issues that I am about to raise. There clearly has to be flexibility in dealing with these situations, but it is worth exploring what could go wrong. The nub of the issue is that they may well go wrong. Let us take an example.
Say that A is 16, and she is struggling with anxiety and behavioural issues. She has had serious suicidal episodes and previous drug use. She lives at home with her loving, supportive parents, who have always acted in her best interests and want to engage constructively with her care, but A is under pressure from a 19-year-old boyfriend. He is controlling, and discourages her from speaking to her parents or professionals. When asked to nominate a trusted adult, A names him. Under the Bill as drafted, the nominated person could be accepted, provided A is deemed to be competent. That would give her boyfriend access to her care decisions and significant legal standing. Under amendments 54 and 55, that would not be possible because he does not have parental responsibility, and therefore could not be appointed.
That example illustrates why the amendments matter. Children, especially those in crisis, may be vulnerable to coercion, grooming, or misplaced trust. Loving parents, who have legal obligations to protect and care for their children in every other walk of life—as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon pointed out—could find themselves legally sidelined.
Are there risks in amendments 54 and 55? We must consider the edge cases. Not all children under 16 live with those who are trusted and have parental responsibility. There are estranged families, kinship carers, informal fostering arrangements and situations of abuse. A strict parental responsibility requirement could exclude the very people relied on by a child. I ask the Minister whether there is flexibility in the amendments for exceptional cases in which someone without PR may be appropriate, with oversight. Do Government amendments 40 and 41 already address that point? Forgive me if I have misinterpreted, but they seem to be bridging amendments. Would guidance or a statutory code of practice provide a better mechanism to balance protection and flexibility? What assessment has been made of children in care or informal arrangements, where parental responsibility might technically lie with a local authority or estranged parent, especially under the changes proposed by Government amendments 40 and 41?
There are potential routes forward. One option might be to require PR by default but allow exceptions if the child expresses a clear competence preference, the AMHP agrees that a person is suitable and poses no safeguard risks, and a senior commissioner or legal oversight has sign-off. That is a possible way of keeping amendments 54 and 55 alive, and it would keep within the spirit of the amendments by protecting children from harmful influence without removing their voice in complex or marginal cases. We could also explore adding an explicit safeguard power to override a child’s nomination where there is concern of coercion or abuse, regardless of parental responsibility status. Again, I think that may be what Government amendments 40 and 41 are trying to do, but I would be grateful to see whether that is the case.
David Burton-Sampson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak to clauses 24 to 28, and I will start by sharing the story of two of my constituents: Carol and her husband John.
John had been an active member of the local community before he was sadly diagnosed with dementia. As his dementia progressed, John was settled into a good care home and Carol was happy with the care that he was receiving. Due to a change in his medication, Carol was told that John had become more agitated and aggressive than usual. She was asked whether she would agree to John being assessed. Although she did not really understand what that meant, she did not see any reason to refuse.
From that point on, Carol says that she felt like she had lost control over her husband’s care. John was assessed by four strangers, and Carol was told that she could not be present. Following the assessment, Carol was told that John would need to be detained under the Mental Health Act within the next two weeks. Carol was very concerned to hear that John would be detained, but despite having power of attorney, she was not able to overrule that decision. She hoped that he would be able to get help with his medication and that he would be discharged.
In the end, Carol had only half an hour’s notice that John was going to be detained. She rushed to the care home to see her husband, who had been sat in the garden having a cup of tea with some friends, being abruptly put into a van by two men and taken away. She was not allowed to come with him, and for the first time in her life, Carol had a panic attack. She could not imagine how traumatic it was for John, who was disorientated and confused because of his dementia, to be taken by people he did not know to a strange place.
John was taken to a secure mental health ward that was very different from the familiar environment of his care home. Carol was told that she could not visit him, but she was insistent and turned up anyway. She was then allowed to meet his doctors on his first day and was reassured to hear that he would be detained for only two weeks while his medication was reviewed.
In the end, John was detained for eight months. Carol continued to visit every day, spending as much time as possible with him. She had specially adapted her home to accommodate John’s needs, but she was not able to have him discharged to either his home or a care home. Precious time was taken up with the endless fight to get John into a more appropriate environment. Sadly, John’s health significantly declined while he was detained. He lost the ability to walk and speak, and Carol felt that, in his declining state, he could not pose any danger to himself or anyone else. However, it was only after he was admitted to hospital for a catheter fitting that Carol was able to get him discharged, thanks to a doctor telling her that she could use her power of attorney to take him home—something she was told she was unable to do in the mental health facility.
She took him to a care home, where, sadly, he died two weeks later. John’s cause of death was listed as Parkinson’s, but Carol feels strongly that the anxiety and fear of his final months contributed to his death. Carol understood that her husband was dying; all she wanted was to be included in making decisions about his care. She knew very clearly what she wanted for him. She told me:
“I wanted him to die in a bed with clean sheets, with a window open and with me by his side.”
Those wishes were not taken into account.
As John’s wife and carer, Carol spent every day with him, yet she felt excluded from the decision-making process for his care. She should have been able to focus on what was important: spending time with him. The changes in clauses 24 to 28 would have helped Carol to feel more involved in representing John during his time in care. Clearly, there were failures to allow Carol, as John’s nearest relative, the rights that she was entitled to in order to support him.
With the move from “nearest relative” to “nominated person”, the new rights afforded by the Bill would have given Carol even greater engagement. Given that she had power of attorney, it is likely that she would have been appointed the nominated person by the AMHP. However, moving forward, it is important that those rights are properly afforded to the nominated person, so that we do not have another situation like John and Carol’s.
Although I welcome and fully support the changes in clauses 24 to 28, I seek an assurance from the Minister that all efforts will be made to ensure that the rights of nominated persons are fully recognised and assigned, and that nominated persons will be made fully aware of their responsibilities and powers, allowing advocacy for the patient under care.
I turn briefly to amendments 54 and 55 and Government amendments 40 and 41. I agree with the Government’s view that if a child has capacity, they should be able to have the choice to appoint their own nominated person. I appreciate the intent of the amendments from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I think that the Government’s approach is more appropriate.
Gregory Stafford
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman sees the potential benefit in the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth gave an example, which I do not think is entirely distanced from reality or possibility, in which a person could well choose someone who is deeply inappropriate. In that situation, the person or people—that is, the parents—who had in every other part of life had responsibility for that child would now potentially not have responsibility for the child, in what is probably the most important part of that responsibility.
Does the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh really not have any concerns about that? If he does, does he not support at least the intentions behind those two amendments, if not the exact wording or drafting? If he does accept those intentions, would he like to see the Government table similar amendments, drafted in a way that he would find more appropriate?
David Burton-Sampson
I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He makes the point that there may be situations in which the young person’s request might be inappropriate. However, on the flip side, there may be a situation in which it might be inappropriate for the person with parental responsibility to be the nominated person. They could have been involved in the situation that has led to that young person entering a mental health spiral—an abuse situation, for example, which has not been discovered by the authorities. That person would still have parental responsibility at that time. I think it is important that the young person can choose the person to support them in their ongoing care. I will be supporting clauses 24 to 28 and Government amendments 40 and 41.
Dr Chambers
Amendment 49 extends the support offered by mental health advocates to cover social and financial stresses and to family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.
Other hon. Members have today discussed how social and financial struggles can play a major role in someone’s mental ill health and in blocking their recovery, and how those are often the areas where someone can most benefit from advocacy and advice. As we are all aware, patients should not be viewed as a collection of symptoms, but within their whole context, including the situation they are living in. Addressing someone’s housing insecurity, debt or family breakdown should not be viewed as a separate consideration, but as a core part of supporting them to live happily, healthily and independently. Furthermore, family carers and the wider household are absolutely critical for people’s wellbeing and recovery, and should be properly equipped to prepare for their loved one returning from hospital. They, too, may need advocacy and may be missing out on support that they can and should receive.
A good example comes from Winchester, where Winchester Citizens Advice has a member of staff—a former mental health nurse—based at Melbury Lodge in-patient mental health unit. Often, someone may be admitted for two, three or four months, and when they are discharged, they go home to all their life admin—there will be final demands for credit cards or requirements to repay personal independence payments and that type of thing. It is very overwhelming, particularly for those who already have fragile mental health, to have to sort out a whole backload of administration—especially financial and complicated administration. For two days a week, that staff member supports in-patients in sorting out all their administration from anything that needs to be done.
What is interesting is that when these patients are discharged from Melbury Lodge in Winchester, if they have had that help, they end up being hospitalised and on medication for a shorter time. They are also more likely to engage with various support and community services once they have been discharged and are much less likely to be readmitted to hospital. For every £1 spent on that initiative, £14.08 is saved in cost avoidance. That initiative run by Melbury Lodge and Winchester Citizens Advice was up for an NHS award last year. It is a proven concept and something that should be done across the entire country. It has been running for two years and has proved how much money can be saved. Unfortunately, it was a pilot project and is struggling to secure money to continue indefinitely. I urge the Government to look at how that type of initiative could be rolled out around the whole country.
Sojan Joseph
The hon. Member is making a very valid point that all patients need help with their finance and accommodation to keep them in the community and make discharge more appropriate. However, those provisions are already in place as part of the patient’s care plan. Different hospitals have different settings, such as a discharge or enablement team, or even the nurses on the ward itself can help and look into those provisions. Does the hon. Member think that that is the role for independent mental health advocates, who prioritise detention and the Mental Health Act, rather than the finance and accommodation issues, which need to be resolved by a different team?
Dr Chambers
I accept that point. It is a very sensible point. There has been a huge amount of discussion about what is in scope. Given that this is focused primarily on both current in-patients and preventing readmittance to an in-patient unit, I think it is within scope. I am aware that a lot of staff support patients, but it is not a core part of their role. It is something they squeeze in among all their other duties. When we have the expertise of someone at citizens advice, who knows how to navigate the huge complexity of various organisations and businesses that have to be dealt with, it is a lot more efficient. The figures speak for themselves.
The Chair
Order. We have strayed on to amendment 49, which is a separate debate. Can we come back to the amendments before us?
Dr Chambers
My apologies, Sir Desmond. I thought amendment 49 was included in the debate on clause 24.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I rise to speak to clauses 24 to 28 and the Government amendments to them. They cover an important and long overdue reform, which introduces a new statutory role: the nominated person, replacing the outdated concept of the nearest relative. I think, cross party, we all agree that this is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society and children.
The clauses and amendments make important changes to the current Act, which too often forces an individual to rely on someone they may not trust or even have contact with, just because of their family relationship. As the Minister said, the White Paper found that the vast majority would choose their parents, but we must have legislation that reflects the diversity of society and families. Growing up in a single parent family, it would have been inappropriate for my other parent—who is one of my nearest relatives, but who I did not live with, know or particularly trust—to be my representative or make decisions on my treatment and care. In my upbringing, the people who knew me best were not always my closest blood relatives.
The nominated person model gives individuals the right to decide who should speak for them when they are at their most vulnerable. That might seem like a small change, but it is a powerful one and aligns with the Bill’s overall goal of placing patient voices at the heart of mental healthcare. Having someone a person trusts—someone who knows them and can advocate for them—is vital. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother was sectioned and assessed at hospital as needing ongoing support in sheltered accommodation. His social worker challenged the decision and recommended private accommodation. That confusion, despite his sister continually challenging the recommendation, meant he was discharged, with nowhere to go, in the middle of the night.
It is crucial that safeguards will remain. Where an individual cannot nominate someone themselves, a person can still be appointed on their behalf, but with far clearer guidelines and recourse if concerns arise. It is not about removing protection; it is about modernising it to reflect the society we represent. Mental health legislation must reflect the value and diversity of the society it serves, and the clauses and amendments before us bring us a step closer to that.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I rise to support amendments 54 and 55, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but I will first briefly speak to clause 24, which is an important and long-overdue step towards modernising the Mental Health Act 1983, crucially strengthening the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals subject to it.
The reform of the existing nearest relative provisions, replacing them with a new system that allows for the appointment of a nominated person, is an important part of ensuring that individuals get the right support, and modernises an outdated system. The current model is based on a rigid and outdated hierarchy in which the role of the “nearest relative” is determined by law, not by the wishes of the patient. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for the complexities and nuances of individual relationships. It can result in someone unsuitable, or even actively harmful, being placed in a central role in a person’s care and treatment journey. Indeed, the limitations of the system have been acknowledged by practitioners, patients and policymakers alike. It is too often disempowering, and the patient can lose agency at a time when they need to be empowered to feel in control of the situation as much as possible.
As the shadow Minister says, clause 24 is the cornerstone of the reforms. It is an important change to the current legislation to reaffirm the commitment to patient-centred care, to dignity and to the principle that those receiving treatment under the Mental Health Act should have a voice in decisions about their support network. The aim of the clause—to put the patient first—is important. It acknowledges that the person best placed to advocate for the patient may not be their closest relative. In some cases, family dynamics are fraught. In others, the designated relative may hold views about treatment that conflict with the patient’s wishes or medical advice. We have seen real-world examples in which the imposition of the “nearest relative” role has led to tension, distress and, ultimately, a breakdown in trust. That is not the kind of environment in which recovery is fostered.
Amendments 54 and 55 would address the specific issue of nominated persons and those with parental responsibility for children under the age of 16. It is important that we consider situations in which a young person may be in a vulnerable position and their decision on who their nominated person should be may not be in their best interests. We have a particular duty to ensure that children are safeguarded. Clause 24 as it stands will allow under-16s to choose someone who is not the parent to have significant power, including the ability to discharge the child from hospital.
We must listen to and actively try to support any young person who needs that kind of intervention—it is not that their views should not be considered. However, there is a very real risk that a vulnerable child or teenager might be coerced by or under the control of an older partner, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth pointed out. Perhaps they might choose an older friend. We need to consider that a decision made by the nominated person, such as an older friend, may have implications for those with parental responsibility. For example, that older friend may decide to discharge a child from hospital and into the care of the parents, who would not provide advocacy or be part of that decision making.
The Minister said that safeguards will be put in place, but can he expand on that? There are some real concerns here. Let us consider a situation in which there has been a decision by a court to determine which parent has responsibility for the child. If complex family issues have already been considered by the family court, it is right that the decision be followed. I respectfully ask the Minister to reconsider this point. We must respect the fact that parents of those under 16 are best placed to advocate for, support and act for their children. This is about capacity, consent and, ultimately, safeguarding.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I remember the comments made by the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh, who is chuntering from a sedentary position—I think he disagrees with my hon. Friend’s point. In his reply to my intervention, he made the point that there are situations in which things are the other way round, where those who have parental responsibility are not necessarily the appropriate persons.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, on first principles, the parent should have parental responsibility in all areas of life, including the ones that she is talking about, unless there are specific reasons, such as the court decision to which she referred, that suggest that the parent is not the correct person to have responsibility? Surely, in the balance of danger or risk, there is a far greater risk if the nominated person is not a parent than if the nominated person is a parent.
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If parents are not acting in the best interests of their children, there is a wider safeguarding issue that needs to be considered. One would question why such parents had been left in a situation in which they have responsibility for their children and are potentially harming them.
That leads me nicely to another point, which is that introducing the additional wording would bring mental health in line with physical health. For someone under the age of 16, it is their parents who have the responsibility to act in the best interests of their physical health; it seems to me that one would expect the same for mental health. I therefore urge the Committee to support amendments 54 and 55.
Let me return briefly to the overarching aims of clause 24. I underscore the point that the wider principle at stake—patient autonomy—is one that I support. The ability to make informed choices about one’s care should be a central component of our care system. In mental health, where individuals can feel particularly vulnerable, that becomes even more essential. Granting patients the power to nominate someone who will advocate for them, advise them and represent their wishes is a powerful act of empowerment. Moreover, this change enhances safeguards for patients. It ensures that the person acting on their behalf is someone they have chosen and trust. It reduces the potential for conflict and opens the door to a more collaborative and compassionate model of care.
If the Committee agrees to the amendments, which would provide the necessary safeguards for children, who I believe should be considered separately to adults, my overall view is that clause 24 represents a pragmatic, compassionate and patient-focused update to the Mental Health Act. It aligns with our modern understanding of mental healthcare and puts trust, respect and dignity at the heart of our legislative framework.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendments 54 and 55, which propose that where a nominated person is appointed to represent the interests of a patient under the age of 16, that individual must hold parental responsibility. At face value, that is a concise and apparently straightforward proposal. However, as with much in the Bill and in our mental health legislation more broadly, what appears simple can raise intricate legal and ethical questions. I therefore wish to probe both the merits and the challenges of these amendments. I do so not to come down firmly on one side of the argument or the other, but in the hope of assisting the Committee to think through the implications of the amendments. I hope to prompt the Minister to provide further clarification as our consideration of the Bill proceeds.
I will start by setting out the case in favour of the amendments. There is an intuitive and, I would argue, legally grounded rationale behind amendment 54. It rests on the principle that serious decisions concerning a child’s mental health—decisions that might involve treatment without consent, or even deprivation of liberty—ought to be taken, or at least overseen, by somebody who already holds recognised legal responsibility for that child.
Parental responsibility is not merely administrative. It carries statutory and common-law duties to protect, support and advocate for a child’s welfare. By requiring the nominated person to have such responsibilities, the amendment seeks to ensure a level of legal legitimacy and continuity. It would strengthen the position of those with a formal bond to the child and might help to guard against the risk of unsuitable or ill-informed individuals stepping in to play such a critical role.
In that sense, amendment 54 reflects what many would see as good legal hygiene. It would bring new legislation into closer alignment with the Children Act 1989 and with broader child welfare practice. It would create a baseline expectation that only those with legal authority over a child should make, or help to make, decisions of such magnitude. It would also offer reassurances to families. For parents and guardians already concerned about the complex and sometimes opaque processes of mental health detention, the amendment offers a clear signal that their role cannot be set aside lightly. That reassurance may be particularly important when children are subject to long-term care or involuntary treatment. However, questions begin to surface at precisely that point, because although the principle appears sound, the practice is far from straightforward. It is therefore important that we probe both the advantages and disadvantages of the amendment.
Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 9.45 am Crown Prosecution Service Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 10.25 am Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales; Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales; Victim Support Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 10.55 am Resolve; ASB Help Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 11.25 am Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 2.40 pm The Suzy Lamplugh Trust; End Violence Against Women Coalition; Women’s Aid Federation of England Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.00 pm Justice for Victims Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.20 pm ManKind Initiative Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 3.40 pm HM Prison and Probation Service Tuesday 17 June Until no later than 4.00 pm Ministry of Justice
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 June;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 June;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 5; Schedule 2; Clauses 6 to 12; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 13 to 16; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 26 June.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
The Chair
Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.
We will now hear oral evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.45 am. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Sarah Hammond: Good morning, everybody. My name is Sarah Hammond. I am the chief Crown prosecutor for the CPS in Mersey-Cheshire and the CPS national lead for victims and witnesses.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Sarah Hammond: The CPS looks at every sentence that is imposed to see whether, in our view, it is potentially unduly lenient. If we identify that a case is potentially unduly lenient, we would ask for some advice from the prosecution counsel who appeared in the sentencing court. We would read that, and, if we still felt that the sentence was unduly lenient, we would put together a package of papers to send to the Attorney General’s office for consideration.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: Currently the responsibility for informing victims of the sentencing outcome from the hearing lies with the police witness care unit officers. Having said that, if there are questions that the witness care unit officers cannot answer then under the victims code they can refer the matter back to the CPS. We would then happily speak to the victim, explain the unduly lenient sentence programme, and signpost them to where they can access that and the steps around it. We have a guide for victims once they come into the criminal justice system, to explain what happens when a case comes to the CPS, and there is a section within that about when they feel a sentence is too short. We also have a presence in court at the sentencing hearing so, where possible, either prosecution counsel or a member of the CPS can speak to the victim about the sentence and answer any questions they have about potential challenges.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I am aware that the Law Commission is looking more widely into potential reforms of the law and criminal appeals.
Dr Mullan
Just to make you aware, the Law Commission’s current consultation paper says that it does not recommend any change to that time period, so I am interested in your views on that question specifically.
Sarah Hammond: Okay. A timescale of 28 days is challenging, but at the moment we feel it works quite well. As professionals within that environment we are well used to obtaining the information we need with a sense of urgency. There are quite good mechanisms in place. That said, if there is evidence that extending the timescales would make the process smoother or more efficient and give people who, as you say, probably have other things on their minds than appealing sentence the ability to do so, then the CPS would support that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I have not personally. I could make some inquiries into how often that happens and we could happily write to the Committee with some more detail around that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Sarah Hammond: I think we would have to look at what the extent of the legislation is, but we would be happy to work together with the Government in relation to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
Sarah Hammond: We welcome the focus in the Bill on broadening the pool of professionals who are eligible to become crown prosecutors. Recruitment can be challenging. It is a competitive market out there, so I think measures that broaden the pool of people from which we can recruit will be really helpful. We have other measures in place that will assist with the recruitment of crown prosecutors. We have just launched a scheme called Go Prosecute for senior crown prosecutors, aimed at professionals who have perhaps stepped out of criminal law practice for a while for various reasons. We would offer them a 12-month contract, with a view to extension, to come back into the field of criminal law practice and would support them to do so.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sarah Hammond: It will allow us to recruit. We were very pleased with the settlement that we received in the spending review, which gives us the capacity to take the legal workforce to the levels that we really need to be able to prosecute cases effectively. The measures in the Bill will also allow for a more diverse workforce. It will allow people who have perhaps had different experiences and backgrounds in the profession to become Crown prosecutors.
As a whole, I do not think it can solve all the problems with backlogs and delays, and there is a duty on everybody in the justice system to ensure that we are maximising productivity and efficiency as well within the systems. We have just started a programme of continuous improvement, and I know that it is a priority for the Director of Public Prosecutions personally. We are looking at all our systems and processes to make sure that we are stripping out any inefficiencies and waste.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Sarah Hammond: It is important to get a wide range of evidence. I have been working in the CPS for 27 years, so I have seen only one side of it, and there will obviously be lots of different aspects. As I said, if there is that wide body of evidence that suggests that people are being disadvantaged by that timescale, it is important to get all the information around that before any decisions are made.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Q
Sarah Hammond: As always, there is a collective challenge when a Bill becomes law just to work out how things will work in practice and how implementation will work. Take the restriction on parental responsibility. It will be important for the CPS to work with the Government, police and local authorities to obtain the relevant information about evidence of parental responsibility and put that before a judge to make the decision without causing any further delays in the system. Once the Bill becomes law, it is a case of working through some of the processes to make sure that the implementation is smooth and we have those clear processes in place.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Sarah Hammond: It will enable us to recruit more. As I have said, it is quite a competitive market out there. There will be more people eligible to become Crown prosecutors. That will include people who are qualified under the provisions relating to the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. We also have a number of associate prosecutors who have worked for the CPS for many years and have great experience. However, I do not think that is the complete solution to it. While we can possibly recruit more Crown prosecutors, a system-wide approach is needed to tackle those backlogs and delays and give justice for victims.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Sarah Hammond: There is a balance between ensuring that we widen the service and not letting professional standards drop. We have a very comprehensive induction and training programme for Crown prosecutors. They have a 12-week induction programme when they join us. For those who join us who perhaps do not have experience of criminal law or have stepped out of criminal law for a while, there is also a separate course that serves as a refresher into the basic principles of criminal law. I am happy that there are some safeguards and training in there to ensure that prosecutors are of the standard we require.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Sarah Hammond: If I may, I will take the first question in two parts. I do not have that figure on the current recruitment rate with me today, but we can write in and let you have it. On minimum standards, we would have an interview process for people to become Crown prosecutors. There would be minimum standards for people to pass that interview stage, and we would not lower them just because we are broadening the pool of Crown prosecutors. It is important that professional standards do not slip.
I am not aware of any reason why private prosecutions would increase as a result of the particular recruitment issues, but if that is problem, obviously we will look into it, and work with our colleagues on that as well.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Q
Sarah Hammond: Ultimately, that is a matter for the Government. There is clearly an argument for victims to be able to see that justice has been done. It will also potentially help with appeals for unduly lenient sentences if victims are able to access the sentencing remarks, so they can see the basis upon which the sentence has been passed.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Nicole Jacobs, Baroness Newlove and Katie Kempen gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Katie Kempen: Good morning. My name is Katie Kempen, and I am the chief executive of Victim Support, the leading victims’ charity for England and Wales.
Baroness Newlove: Good morning. I am Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: I welcome the fact that there is an extension as such, but the 28-day limit has not changed for the victim, and that is the worry. The extension is more in the backroom. I agree with it, because I do not want things to be rushed, but the limit has not changed for the victim, which worries me. Victims really do not know this information; it will be mentioned only if the prosecution lets them know about it. Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking. Really, that is the crux of why we have mentioned this. Nobody understands undue leniency in the first place, and it is then for the victims to look into it.
Also, at the end of the 28-day process, I have had victims put a request in, but the box has shut at 5 pm, and that is it. I think that is quite cruel to a victim as well. I think the limit needs to be a lot longer to give them time to absorb the sentence and understand it. When I say longer, I am thinking six months, because we give plenty of time to an offender, who has a legal advocate all the way through. I speak personally on this issue. I can assure you that it needs to be looked at again.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would echo that. I am stating the obvious, but with victims—certainly through the lens of domestic abuse—you have to appreciate some of the dynamics of coercion and control, including isolation from family and friends. Often, a lot of information is unknown and comes to the attention of friends, family and victims in different ways. There is so much there that has to be unpicked and understood.
I know we will go on to talk about this, but certainly support for victims throughout the criminal justice system, really needs improvement. It comes down to the most basic understanding of who is who, and what your rights are. That was the whole point of the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and this Bill is about improving on that. It is really true how disorienting the system is, and we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.
Katie Kempen: We would also support an extension. Our experience of working with victims who have gone through court is often that the process traumatises them and they need some time for decompression. They need time to speak to their advisers or advocates. We know that victim services are under pressure. Our advocates will be carrying other caseloads as well. From our perspective, to give the victims time to understand and process what has happened to them, and to be able to access the support and guidance that they need, 28 days is really difficult to work within, so we would support an extension. We have no issue with the extension that is within the Bill. We support that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: Again, from personal experience—after 17 years, and still going through the criminal justice system—I think that, once a person is convicted, you have to consider the whole environment of what the victims and families have sat in. I sat for 10 weeks in a courtroom, listening to everything, and I think we need to understand that the victim personal statement—I prefer “impact statement”, to be honest; it was changed under Gordon Brown—is their right to have their say. I do not think there is the right to keep redacting.
I am now a bit concerned because I am hearing that it is a piece of evidence, so they have got to be careful what they say. In all the years that I have been working in this area, I have never heard that before. For me, it is about having that voice—for example, hearing about somebody who has been brutally murdered. It is their opportunity. I am going to look further into this, as Victims’ Commissioner, but I think it is a right for the victims. It is in the victims code; it does not have any caveats.
I am very concerned to hear, when we meet victims, that something has been redacted three times, or taken out three times. There needs to be more evidence about this and how they are treated. These are the most appalling crimes, and I do not think it is acceptable. Otherwise, victims are just going to say, “Why bother?” The championing I have done over 13 years has been to ensure that the victim impact statement is the voice of the victim, which has been silenced all the way through.
Katie Kempen: The addition from our perspective is that the victims we support, by and large, find the whole process quite confusing, and they need support to get through it. We would welcome clear guidance, clear information and respect for the victim’s right to have their voice heard, in so far as is possible.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would agree. A lot of these answers are going to come back to the same principles: one of the things that we have not achieved is clear support for victims, end to end. There are contracts, or bits and pieces—I am sure Katie can speak to this—that are parts of the process. However, all those things feed in to one another. The victim impact statement is an example of where victims often do not understand what their rights are. They do not understand who to speak to if they are being told something they feel is unjust or they do not agree with. We could do so much more. One gap in the Bill that I wanted to mention concerns wider support for victims, in terms of building community-based support that could start at a much earlier point in the criminal justice process.
In the context of court delays, court backlogs and the sentencing changes afoot, this is a critical piece of legislation that could address some of those gaps. That would help victims very much, end to end. Some of the examples of injustice that we pick out would be much more comprehensively addressed. That is one of the things I would encourage you all to consider.
Dr Mullan
Q
Baroness Newlove: First and foremost, you need to consider what the victims and families have gone through—the whole context. This is just one part of it. I am nervous when you focus on one section and do not look at the environment. Victims and families are sat in the courtroom for many months. They have listened to everything. They may have given evidence via the defence. They have a prosecutor that is not for them, but for the state, and may have let them down. This needs to be viewed in its context. I have always said that I wish judges would own courts, because defendants run them ragged. I have been to many courts over the years, and when you get a good judge, you really get that.
We are also talking, however, about families who do not understand the judiciary or the language. There needs to be a part of the hearing, when the defendant has been convicted, to say, “We need to speak to the families.”—but do not just do it on the day of the sentencing; give them the opportunity to digest, as you would with the defence and legal arguments, when nobody is allowed in. That could be private, where nobody comes in. It is important to recognise the whole context.
If the defendant is not there, put TV screens in the prison cell. When I worked in the courts, I went to prison cells when defendants would not come down, and we have been up and done that. It is about controlling the environment but, more importantly, it is for the victim, because the defendant seems to control this, which is so wrong when they have been convicted. We need to train the judiciary how to do this, and it is not going to be favourable to one side. Victims only get this time after the whole process, and I am concerned that they will not have the opportunity to digest it. They are emotionally drained and I think it could be rushed too quickly.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree with that.
Katie Kempen: Building on that, there is a need for a holistic exploration of what victims experience in the courtroom. Our report, “Suffering for justice”, referenced long waits for sentencing hearings and not being able to access special measures. The reality for victims in court is that they are standing outside court with the offender’s supporters and family, that they have to sit in the public gallery, and that they clearly feel they are being intimidated when the sentencing remarks come through. We welcome the sharing of the sentencing remarks with victims, ensuring that they understand the impact of them.
We agree that the victims’ voice needs to be at the centre of any sentencing hearing. Some victims may well want the offender to attend. In other cases I have attended, I have seen young people give their victim personal statements against people who have abused them, it was very difficult for them to be able to see the offender. I really feel that victims’ needs should be taken into consideration so that they feel they can have their say in that environment.
Baroness Newlove: May I just add something important? When offenders have been acquitted, as they were in my case—I say this because this is how it feels—the offender’s family may be in the public gallery. My family had to have police protection. It is about the environment in that sentencing court. It is not simplistic. I hope that the Government take on board the fact that there is all that going on: you having to digest a very important, very technical decision while you are being goaded and having to be protected.
Dr Mullan
Q
You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very aware of dysfunctions within how domestic abuse is understood in the family court. It is positive to clarify to the court that, with certain offences, allowing parental responsibility should be considered inappropriate. Even saying that, though, I am a bit cautious about a completely black-and-white approach. I agree with the provisions in the Bill, but you would have to think very carefully about the range of other offences—for equivalent convictions against other children, absolutely, but I do not know enough about what is being proposed in terms of the range of other offences.
While we are on the subject of family court, one of the long-standing clarifications needed from Government is about a presumption of parental involvement. The Government were looking into that literally years ago, when I was first appointed as a designate, and it has not been resolved. That should be either clarified through this legislation or just clarified full stop. In the family court, the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, which is adequate in considering the safety of a child, is often confused with a presumption of parental involvement. I believe that the safety of children, who are recognised as victims in their own right in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, should be paramount.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?
Dame Nicole Jacobs: As Baroness Newlove said, it depends on the victim and the family, and the context of the situation. For many people, it would be heartening to feel that there is an ability to compel someone to come to court to hear their sentence and the consequences of their actions, which have devastated the lives of those people. But I could also imagine, especially in the context of domestic abuse, situations in which the victim, or their family if they have been murdered, would find some of that difficult. You would have to understand those dynamics.
In the context of domestic abuse, for example, there could be a very clear notion that that would be the just thing to do. There could be another example where, because of the nature of the family—keep in mind that for domestic abuse, I am looking through the lens of the fact that the victim and perpetrator are very well known to each other; that is not the case for all sorts of other crimes—there could be dynamics that are more complex. That is why what both Katie and Baroness Newlove have said, about understanding that the victim and families will feel confident and engaged and able to speak, is really important.
We must also keep in mind, especially with domestic abuse, that there could be family members and people involved as victims who have radically different views. Again, there is a complexity to this that does not necessarily always come through in a very black-and-white provision.
Baroness Newlove: Again, I want to support the family. The decisions we are making here are for the professionals to make the courtroom run seamlessly, but it could happen instantly—if the defendant just does not come down, how are we going to manage the emotions on the day, as well as the emotions they have gone through on the journey? I really want to make sure that they are supported.
I see that there is going to be a penal order in prison. I could go on a bit about that myself, but I will not—that is out of scope. I welcome that provision, but am also concerned about how it is managed. If the governor of the prison sees that that is going to be detrimental to their health and wellbeing, it might not happen, and so then where is the transparency about that being delivered for the victim? I think we need to do further work and look at that, because there is very little communication to victims. Nobody knows what they do in prison. Victims are told what they are doing, but they get very little information. For me this is a step forward, but what happens at the end of the day is far more important.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I cannot underscore enough how important it is for this gap to be filled. It is exactly as you say; there are so many victims who, if they do not meet the criteria of the victim contact scheme, are literally not in the frame for any advice or support. Yet there are all these changes, whether that is an early release or just any information at all, such as the conditions of release. I get these calls at my office—I am sure we all do. They are very hard to problem-solve through; you have to find the right person within probation who may be able to tell you, and it is a huge gap.
I am really pleased about the provision adding offences to the full victim contact scheme, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment. That is really welcome. More people will be eligible for the victim contact scheme. I remind you of what I am told by probation—that victims who are eligible for the scheme do not always have contact because some of the contact details are lost or the fact that they are eligible for that scheme is maybe not known to them. That brings us back to the same theme: where is the end-to-end support for victims?
I think a helpline will really fill a gap. My question about the helpline is whether the resource is adequate. That is a question that needs to be answered, or at least there needs to be an iterative process, where we can see that and build on it. My guess is that the helpline will start feeling very much like casework. It will not be as simple as victims calling and saying, “Can you tell me some information?” or an advocate calling on their behalf. They will want to then say, “I do not think these conditions are adequate”, and they will have a lot of questions. There is a lot of logistics behind the scenes that I worry about, and whether they will have the access to the information they need.
I am sure I should hand over to Katie and Baroness Newlove, who see a lot of this happening too. The answer is yes; it is great to have the helpline, but there is a question mark in my mind about the resourcing and whether we will quickly learn that there is much more need for a caseworking approach.
Certainly, the biggest gap remaining for me is victims whose offender is in prison for something that is not a domestic abuse-related crime. That is the biggest difficulty in all this. Very often—say if it is a drug-related crime—it has “nothing” to do with domestic abuse, but they are a known perpetrator, and those victims need to be able to access the line.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very pleased about that. It is a big step forward.
Katie Kempen: I agree with Nicole. We support the extension of the victim contact scheme, and we think it is hugely valuable to have that access to information—victims tell us that all the time. As has been said, in the last year or so, it would have been an invaluable resource for victims to be able to access.
On Nicole’s concerns about resourcing, as an organisation that runs a helpline, I would say that up to £200,000 for the helpline feels quite optimistic. The operational challenges that we bump into include that people are often in mental health distress when they access these contact lines, so the calls take longer and you need your staff to be trained in safeguarding, data protection, referrals and so on, which all takes time and investment.
The other element from our perspective is the knock-on impact this will have on victim services. It is estimated that the phone call will last about 28 minutes, and we will then need to pick it up and explain to the victim what their rights are, where they can go from here and where they can get further information. Undoubtedly, we will need to give additional emotional support—the phone call is likely to be quite traumatic for them. We need to see additional investment in the victim services that will be picking up the additional demand that comes from the scheme, although I would say it is a hugely welcome step forward.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Q
Katie Kempen: We think it is clear and makes it quite accessible. From our perspective, if possible, we would like to see the eligibility for the victim contact scheme to go to all victims of domestic abuse. As Nicole mentioned, a person might not be convicted of a DA-related offence, but there is none the less an impact on the victim. You have referred to flagging as part of the sentencing review, and we think that could help. Where possible, we would like to see it extended. However, it seems as though the reforms will make it easier and clearer for victims to access support information.
Baroness Newlove: I agree.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would just underscore for the Committee that the inclusion of children is very important. I recently published a report on children, “Victims in their own right?”—that question mark was on purpose. One aspect of the report was mapping 700 services for children in England and Wales, and the fact that one in five say that they do not have adequate funding, which had led to curtailment.
If I had to name one of the largest gaps we have in victim services—I would say there are gaps across the board—it is the huge gap in relation to children. That goes back to this continual theme. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act, we have the duty to collaborate. I was a huge champion for that, and I am now very involved in its enactment, but it does not create any new funds for services for victims; it says to local areas, “You have a duty to collaborate on the funding streams that currently exist”.
I would say that a huge gap in this Bill is a duty to fund community-based services. Without wishing to embarrass Katie by talking about the incredible work that is done by Victim Support, there is a range of services that are the foundation of support for victims. They do not sit in core budgets like other kinds of public services do. That is one thing we have to fundamentally address for victims to have that kind of end-to-end support. I will not labour it any more, but I have to point out the biggest gap. It is great to have children defined, but what does that mean?
Katie Kempen: The reality for us is that the budgets for commissioning services are being cut, so the services that we can provide are being cut. The increase in national insurance contributions has obviously hit the sector really hard as well. We support all this work to improve the victim experience, but it needs to go hand in hand with a well-resourced victim sector that can take victims from the point of the crime occurring—even pre-charge and pre-contacting the police—right to the end of the criminal justice process.
Baroness Newlove: Can I bring it back to the information for victims? The one thing I am really concerned about is the importance of what information is given to victims, because it is very patchy. They are being told, “We cannot tell you whether the offender has been released”, and they cannot be told where the offender lives or what the offender knows about their exclusion zones. I truly welcome the fact that we will hopefully turn it into a restriction zone, because I have mapped my life out, and I have three offenders who know exactly where I am.
More importantly, the information takes too long and is very clunky. The victim liaison officer tries to do as much as they can, but I think this is an ideal opportunity—I am looking at the Minister—to let the victim know that, if the offender has been released, he does not live in the area; he lives 300 miles away. That gives comfort. I have met a victim who is petrified that the offender lives near her, because nobody will tell her where the offender is. We are not saying police must pinpoint where he is, but, if that offender lives 300 miles away, she can at least go out the door and go to the shops without feeling that he will be around the corner. That is really important. Why are we nervous about sharing information about offenders when offenders can know a lot about victims?
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Baroness Newlove: Antisocial behaviour is my drum. I absolutely welcome that the commissioner is now able to explore the treatment of victims of antisocial behaviour—I have been going on about that for many years—but there are still challenges that victims face.
I really like that it will allow an investigation of how the housing agencies and associations treat victims, because it is like ping pong with these housing associations—I welcome that. I challenged the Victims and Prisoners Act because victims should expect to be entitled to the right support under the victims code. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour should fall under the victims code. Trying to get people to understand the impact of antisocial behaviour as a crime—and it is a crime—is all down to how much the victim reports. That is where we need better understanding.
I also want a statutory threshold for ASB case reviews, and I want an independent chair for ASB case reviews, because I am tired of agencies marking their own homework. More importantly, I want the victim to be able to go to this, because you are talking about them and the impact on them, yet they are not invited. For me, that is really important. I welcome anything for antisocial behaviour, and I would like the Government to look at the report’s recommendations and see what else we can add.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Baroness Newlove: I certainly do. The media give out information, and I have learned more about my sentencing remarks because I never got them until very long afterwards. Every victim, not just those of sexual crimes, has a right to see those sentencing remarks, because it gives them time to digest. You leave the courtroom thinking that you know everything, but as your memory and emotions come, you start asking yourself questions.
Sentencing is very technical: you hear a sentence, then it is reduced if they have been on remand—there are boxed-off things. Also, as I found out, there are tariff reviews for juveniles, which even the probation service was not aware of because there are very few of them. If you look at the crime rate, you will see that we are getting younger offenders in prison. We have to prepare families for the tariff review, which means that offenders go to appeal to reduce their tariff, so you go through that.
It should not simply be a case of saying, “There are the sentencing remarks.” There are implications, and every victim has a right to see the sentencing remarks. It is about them, and it affects the decisions about what the offender will do, and it should be the victim’s right to have that information. They do not have any advocates to speak for them, and the prosecution pursue their own case. If the media can get things out there, why can we not give it to victims and families?
Katie Kempen: From our perspective, accessing sentencing remarks is an issue for victims. They would like to be able to access them. We welcomed the pilot and its continued roll-out.
I have a nuanced response because victims’ needs differ. If there is to be wider publication, we need to see whether any protection is needed for individual victims, rather than carte blanche, “Yes, publish them all.” A key issue is explaining the sentencing remarks to victims. Again, in our “Suffering for Justice” report, where victims did not have the sentencing remarks explained to them, it caused them real anguish and distress. They should be able to have the sentencing remarks explained to them, and where they do, it helps their recovery journey and brings closure. My answer is yes, with some nuance. We need the explanation, and we need to treat the victims like a human being who has gone through a traumatic experience.
Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Q
Katie Kempen: Yes. Particularly when looking at antisocial behaviour, we absolutely welcome the additional powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. Brutally, the Victims’ Commissioner knew what the issues were surrounding antisocial behaviour—the last time she was in office, she wrote a fantastic report that has still not been fully implemented and enacted.
At Victim Support we would like to see an ASB charter so that victims of antisocial behaviour have clarity on their expectations and rights, and on the responsibilities of each organisation. Victims are far too often ping-ponged between different organisations. They do not hear their rights in terms of the reviews.
As Baroness Newlove has said, there is a cohort of victims who slip through the net in accessing victim support services. Their case may not reach the criminal threshold that gets them to victims code rights, but they are still finding that their lives are essentially ruined by antisocial behaviour. Those cases are complex, difficult to resolve and take significant advocacy. We need some clarity on rights and responsibilities in that arena.
Baroness Newlove: I add a request to get rid of the term “low level.” The police start by thinking that antisocial behaviour is low level, and if you train your police officers with that narrative, they will not give respect to victims. Antisocial behaviour is horrendously violent to the individual. For my last report I met victims whose houses were nearly burned down, but the local authorities never came. I have met a victim of arson against their car, which nearly murdered the family because she was sleeping on the sofa—the police never came out, but the fire officers sat there for two hours.
We have to get away from looking at antisocial behaviour as low level, because it is the route for violence upon violence. I do not want to talk just about me, but my husband was murdered. Before that, it would have been treated as antisocial behaviour. If he had lived, it would have just gone through the system. If you leave antisocial behaviour, it is like a cancer; it will spread and spread.
That is where it helps communities, if you really want to get to the nub of all this. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am delighted about being able to go to a housing provider, but you are quite right about the implementation and accountability. This is going to take many attempts, but it has to start with the police to stop the ping-ponging. There is a human there who is feeling suicidal. You will act if they take their life, like Fiona Pilkington or David Askew did, and that is too little too late.
Jack Rankin
Q
Baroness Newlove: I broadly welcome it, with a bit of a caveat, as I am the victims’ champion. Currently, I have to explain to every victim who writes in that I cannot get involved in individual cases under the statute. That is not to say that I do not pass on the information to Ministers and ask them to help and support. I am very concerned about how we may class victims under two tiers, and that is what we have to look at—it will not be me, but the future Victims’ Commissioner.
I receive hundreds of letters, even in the House of Lords, and I am trying to separate them using three criteria. First, does the correspondence highlight a gap in the policy? That is about a victim’s right to a review, and if it is not right, I raise it with the Minister or the Attorney General. Secondly, does the correspondence highlight a failure to deliver in line with policy? I see cases that seemingly meet the ASB case review threshold, but the local authority has added further obstacles, which does not help.
Thirdly, and finally, does the correspondence highlight policy that perverts outcomes for victims? By that, I mean that the court orders compensation, which is deducted from criminal injuries compensation—that is another debate that I will not go into. In some cases—or in the majority of cases, if we are perfectly honest—the victim waits years, because it is a drip feed. If we are looking at funding, there is over £1 billion outstanding in unpaid fines and compensation. I would like the courts to act and get the money off the offender so that it goes to victims, who have to wait too long.
Those are the criteria I am looking at. It will take a while, but it is paramount that the Victims’ Commissioner sets guidelines. I hear that line, “Does not look at individual cases”, but my correspondents think I can, and it really hurts me when I have to say that I cannot as Victims’ Commissioner—it is all the jargon and waffle that we do. I ensure that victims truly understand that I will signpost their correspondence to the people in charge. I will show them, and they will get transparency in that way.
Jack Rankin
I was just going to offer the panel the opportunity to say whether there is anything not in the Bill that they would like to see included.
The Chair
I think we will pass on that, if we may. I will go to our last question from Tristan Osborne, but we have to be quick.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Baroness Newlove: We are going to wait for Sir Brian Leveson’s report, because it does not matter what I say. It matters what Sir Brian comes up with. However, as my background is working with magistrates and Crown courts, I am looking at district judges, or DJs—who used to be called stipendiary magistrates. I want to see more of them, because I can assure you that if you have a stipendiary magistrate—and there are only two laypersons, by the way, and this is one—the professionals have to get their act together. It depends on what Sir Brian Leveson is looking at, and—
The Chair
Order. I am very sorry to interrupt, but we are at the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Rebecca Bryant and Charlotte Hamilton-Kay gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Resolve and ASB Help. We have until 10.55 for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Rebecca Bryant: Good morning. My name is Rebecca Bryant and I am the chief executive of Resolve.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Good morning. I am Charlotte Hamilton-Kay and I am the deputy chief executive of ASB Help.
Dr Mullan
Q
The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property?
Rebecca Bryant: Compensation in relation to antisocial behaviour cases is currently quite vague. Often, if you are looking at cases that are resolved through an early intervention and prevention approach, you would be looking at more of a restorative justice element, and perhaps mediation, where there is no compensation and it is more about recognising the impact of the behaviour the person has perpetrated. Once you move into the legal action arena, we have to recognise that a lot of the people who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour may not be in a position to pay any compensation—although I recognise that, from a victim’s perspective, some sort of restorative approach would be welcome.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree with that. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that when we record it, and when certain agencies take reports, there is a real grey area in how it is classified. We struggle with the classification of crime versus antisocial behaviour. It is often dismissed as a misdemeanour or, as Baroness Helen said, it is low level, so we are not necessarily going to reach the threshold at which we can look at compensation. That is impactive for victims of antisocial behaviour, because it immediately makes them feel that what they have experienced and suffered is not as important or serious as other cases that might meet the criteria. We would really need to look at that before we could go that way.
Additionally, victims of antisocial behaviour often do not report what they are experiencing because they feel they are not going to be listened to or taken seriously. Introducing a compensation element would just complicate that at this stage.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: That is not something that I have come across at all. Restorative justice and community remedy can be either between the two individuals or group of individuals who are involved in the antisocial behaviour—bringing them together and doing a piece of work to recognise the impact of that behaviour—or something in the community itself, perhaps with higher visibility. There was a pilot last year around immediate justice and the impact on the community of seeing the behaviour paid back, if you like.
Restorative justice is often only one of the tools that we use to respond to antisocial behaviour. When we are talking about early intervention and prevention, we also use mediation and warnings, highlighting to the individual perpetrator the impact that the behaviour is having on the victim and the community.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think I would, but how long is that time? I think a victim of antisocial behaviour, community safety issues or even crime wants to see some closure, move forward and move past the incident that has happened. Having something like that hanging over them for an indefinite amount of time might not enable them to have that closure.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: The bonus of fines or penalty notices for antisocial behaviour is that we hope they act as a deterrent. If they are not working as a deterrent, it does not matter what amount of time we put on them: they are not going to have the effect on the perpetrator of stopping the behaviour. Yes, there needs to be culpability —we should not just have a “get out of jail free” card if we can wait out the clock—but we need to be realistic about what they are going to achieve.
Dr Mullan
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: It is a really great step. We need more accountability, and oversight of all agencies involved in managing antisocial behaviour, and the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner, is a really great start to that. There is a huge postcode lottery and disparity across England and Wales in the way that victims of antisocial behaviour are supported, the way their cases are managed and what action is taken on different behaviours. Anything we can do to bring a nationalised approach would be really beneficial to victims.
Rebecca Bryant: I think there is a balance. We welcome the Victims’ Commissioner having the authority, and the co-operation element, but the arena of social housing, local authorities and antisocial behaviour is very crowded at the moment. You have the social housing regulator, which is currently looking at housing providers in relation to the consumer standard, which includes antisocial behaviour—their approach to it, the number of cases per 1,000 and the respondents’ satisfaction with how they respond to it. That is not just for housing providers; it includes local authorities with housing stock. That is one side.
You also have the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman, which both deal with individual people who are not satisfied with the response they have received from the agency we are talking about. We are very supportive of antisocial behaviour victims and approaches being at the forefront of the Victims’ Commissioner’s mind, and her or him being able to pull together responses, require people to respond and perhaps look at themes and areas where we can strengthen our support and guidance for agencies that work in this arena, but what will that actually look like? We are currently working on that with the current Victims’ Commissioner. At the moment it is quite vague. There would have to be a tightening up of what element she is going to look at, bearing in mind that the ASB case review, the housing ombudsman, the local authority ombudsman and the social housing regulator are all looking at the same thing.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Rebecca Bryant: Funded universal support for victims of antisocial behaviour. It has been made clear by not only us but the previous panel that antisocial behaviour is a very broad church and often includes criminal activity, but it is not recorded as a crime. We use antisocial behaviour legislation, as it is under the current regime and as it will be in future with the Crime and Policing Bill, as that stands, for the use or threat of violence, for example. We all know that using or threatening violence is a crime, yet we use antisocial behaviour legislation to respond to it. It can involve drug dealing, cuckooing properties, criminal damage—all those things are crimes.
If you are a victim of crime and you report it as a crime to the police, you will get an automatic offer of victim support. When you are dealing with an antisocial behaviour case, you might report it to the local authority or to a housing provider, and you do not get immediate access to victim support. We know from our own research and research from the Victims’ Commissioner, various different reports and colleagues like ASB Help that what supports a victim is having a named person who can support them through the process. That person can guide them through often very complex and difficult situations in relation to taking legal action, or if the perpetrator is vulnerable and has multiple issues around mental health, drugs and alcohol, and the significant delays in the civil justice system mean that the case may go on for a long time.
We need specialist victim support that is universal and independent. I should stress the independence because, often, when a complainant makes a complaint to a housing provider and a local authority, they will be part of a caseload of many. They will be given some support and guidance, and some people have specialist training to do that, but we would seriously support having an independent specialist to provide that kind of support—for example, Victim Support, which is commissioned and funded. It is very much a postcode lottery at the moment. There are some police and crime commissioners in the country who fund specialist ASB victim support, but they are few and far between. It really is a postcode lottery as to what you get where you live. That is what I think is missing.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I absolutely agree with that. We can talk about victims of a single instance of minor crime, which I do not say easily; it is the criminal version of “low level”. If, for example, someone smashed your plant pots on your front doorstep, that is a crime and you are entitled to support for it. But if you have been suffering sleepless nights for 12 months because a neighbour has kept you awake constantly, you are losing your job because you are falling asleep at work, and you have experienced a constant campaign, there is no one there. If there was a statutory agency to provide support, that could be life-altering for some people. It is a very important thing that we continue to campaign for.
With the best will in the world, a lot of the measures are a great step forward for victims of antisocial behaviour, but if we do not allocate the resources and ensure that the training and experience is there for frontline practitioners, then we are only as good as our weakest link. We need to ensure that we support our frontline practitioners who work in the field of antisocial behaviour to get the job right. If they do not have the resources to do the job properly, they are not going to be able to. If they have not got the training and the knowledge to understand the vulnerabilities and the different caveats of antisocial behaviour, they are not going to be able to do the job properly. That is immediately where we fall down. Unfortunately, the buck will stop with them, so we are dutybound to make sure they have adequate support to do it right.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Rebecca Bryant: I would say that the vast majority of local authorities and housing providers up and down the country resource their response to antisocial behaviour, but there has been a significant impact on that since 2008, with austerity and the cuts that have happened across local authorities. I believe that the toolkit itself is strong. There is a mixture of early intervention and prevention, which we absolutely know work. Around 75% of complaints around antisocial behaviour are resolved first time. When we are talking about taking cases to court, we are only talking about a small minority of all the complaints.
There is something there about us understanding the real picture of antisocial behaviour in the country. A million incidents of antisocial behaviour were reported to the police last year, but our YouGov survey suggests that over 50% of people do not report antisocial behaviour, so imagine doubling that number to 2 million, and then adding on top the incidents recorded by housing providers and local authorities: we are probably looking at more like 4 million or 5 million incidents of antisocial behaviour. It is a really significant problem; it is pernicious and causes great damage to communities and individuals alike.
There are certain things that we strongly feel should happen. We did some work with the all-party parliamentary group a couple of years ago, looking into the complexity of antisocial behaviour. We made a recommendation that there should be a pilot for a specialist housing court that could look at the complexity around antisocial behaviour. You are asking an ASB officer to be an enforcement person, a mediator, a victim support person, a mental health expert and a social worker.
We recognise that people who perpetrate antisocial behaviour can often be victims themselves and have had traumatic experiences—adverse childhood experiences—in their lives, which might be the root cause of their antisocial behaviour. We need to have something like a specialist court, and we need the judiciary who look at antisocial behaviour to be trained to understand the complexity, because we often find that judges are not necessarily trained in antisocial behaviour when they look at complex cases.
The resources required are wide. It is about not just local authorities and housing providers but the community safety partnership, because we know that a partnership response is what resolves antisocial behaviour. It is not about one single agency, and it is certainly not just within the auspices of the police.
Mr Brash
Q
Rebecca Bryant: We have long called for a campaign on antisocial behaviour to explain rights. That is one of the reasons why we have Antisocial Behaviour Awareness Week, when we talk about how to report and what people should expect when they report antisocial behaviour. I liked the idea from Victim Support that perhaps we should have a charter that explains people’s rights: you can ask for an ASB case review, you can make a complaint to the ombudsman if you are dissatisfied, and you can—if this element of the Bill passes—make a complaint to or request support from the Victims’ Commissioner.
Equally, we must remember that this is about stopping antisocial behaviour. Often when members of the public report antisocial behaviour, they are looking for a specific outcome. That outcome might be to evict the person who is the perpetrator, when actually, that is not our role. Our role is to stop the antisocial behaviour from happening. So there is always something, on behalf of housing providers and local authorities, about managing the expectations of the individual who is making the complaint and being really clear on what antisocial behaviour is, what you can resolve as an individual, and what we can do to support you as an organisation. We need to be much clearer about what people can expect from us as the agencies and our response.
Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Absolutely. I will make a couple of points. Rebecca has mentioned the ASB case review. The disparity in its administration across England and Wales is a real issue for victims. We released a report last year that showed there are some areas in England and Wales that, in four years, have still not held one ASB case review, and this legislation has been around for over 11 years. That is purely because victims are not aware of the case review’s existence. They are not able to make an application because it is not publicised. We have to ask why it is not publicised. Practitioners feel that it is a complaint process and will involve them being questioned on why they have made the decisions they have made in case management, and victims are really missing out on the opportunity to explain the impact of what they are experiencing.
As Baroness Newlove mentioned, we really need to standardise the threshold for an ASB case review application, so there are no additional caveats—it is three instances in six months and that is it. We also need to standardise how it is publicised and how victims are made aware of it, because a lot of people are still unaware. A report that you at Resolve issued in the last couple of years said that 87% of people were still unaware of this tool’s existence, so in 11 years we have not done a very good job of making people aware of it.
Finally, on the concept of a victim being able to express what they are experiencing, when we are talking about tenants, everybody experiences things differently. What might be really impactful to me could just go straight over your head. It is all about your personal circumstances and what your experience is, what your triggers are and what you happen to have been experiencing that day. We need to be very clear about what is antisocial behaviour, what is unreasonable behaviour and what is inconsiderate behaviour, and manage the expectations of what people can and cannot demand change to. Managing the expectations of victims is part of the support network. When they know what to expect and what can and cannot happen, and when they are not dealing with that unknown, it makes it a lot easier for them to cope.
Adam Thompson
Q
Rebecca Bryant: It is very difficult to see this Bill in isolation, considering we have the Crime and Policing Bill going through Parliament at the same time. We want to be in lockstep and to recognise that we need not only to support victims and communities, but to consider the drivers for antisocial behaviour—where it is happening and how we can better respond, whether that is through a legal toolkit or by putting checks and balances in place. For example, I gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week around checks and balances on ensuring that we recognise the human rights of individuals versus the community, and how we do that.
Having a spotlight on antisocial behaviour can only be a good thing if it is what the majority of people in the country say is a high priority. Having spoken to lots of Ministers, Governments and civil servants over the last 25 years that I have been working on antisocial behaviour, that priority has not gone away. When you look at our survey results on the impact of antisocial behaviour, one in seven people say that their mental health is impacted, and one in 10 actually move home because they are a victim of antisocial behaviour. Over 50% of people do not report it to us. Why not? Is it because they do not trust us to respond? Is it because we do not advertise how to report it to us? There is something there that we need to be think about, and we need to do more research into that.
With the Crime and Policing Bill, there will be mandating of data collection. For the first time since the crime and policing Act that is there at the moment, we will be gathering information on use of early intervention and prevention tools, and we will be able to evaluate what works, what we want to invest in and how we train our staff. We will look at legal action and whether the new respect order—as it will be once it has been piloted—works. What is the impact of positive requirements and what is the impact of sentencing? What is the impact of increasing fines as a deterrent?
At the centre of that, we will have the Victims’ Commissioner, advocating for individual victims of antisocial behaviour—in a different way, perhaps, from the way the ombudsman will be looking at complaints, the ASB case review looks at a response or the social housing regulator looks at things. The Victims’ Commissioner is actually advocating for the individual victim or the communities that are being impacted, and that can only be a good thing.
The Chair
I thank colleagues for the timeliness and focused nature of their questions. I thank the witnesses for sparing their valuable time this morning to come and give evidence to us.
Examination of Witnesses
Clare Moody and Assistant Chief Constable Genna Telfer gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Clare Moody: Good morning. I am Clare Moody, representing the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
Genna Telfer: Good morning. I am Genna Telfer, representing the NPCC.
Dr Mullan
Q
Genna Telfer: That is a difficult question to start with. It is a tricky one. This would probably be better done through a victim survey of individuals who have been through the process. Although we would want to give people additional time to truly consider it, what might take someone two weeks to think about might take someone else 12 months, so what is the right timeline to put on it? I am not sure I can answer that from a policing perspective.
Obviously, our witness care teams keep victims informed and talk to them. That is absolutely something we would do. We inform them about the scheme, but we do not tell them whether they are eligible for it or not, because we think that would be better done by the CPS, which has a better understanding of how it all works. But in terms of the timeline, that is a difficult one to answer, because how long is a piece of string?
Clare Moody: I agree with Genna. I do not feel that I am qualified to say right now that if you extended this to three months or to two months—
Dr Mullan
Q
Clare Moody: I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks.
Genna Telfer: I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Genna Telfer: Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.
Dr Mullan
Do you want to add anything, Clare?
Clare Moody: In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Genna Telfer: As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.
Clare Moody: I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Genna Telfer: I think it will simplify it. At the moment we have two schemes—the contact scheme and the notification scheme—with different eligibility, so it will make it slightly easier. The helpline is a great idea, but it needs to be resourced properly, as with anything. If it is not, then we are setting an expectation for victims that might not be met, which might frustrate them further. A concern for us in policing is whether, if it is not resourced properly within probation, it falls back to policing to address, when we might not have the information or resource to do it. But in principle, absolutely, I think it is a great idea.
Clare Moody: Again, I agree with that. It is about simplification, clarity, support for victims, and the value that that adds. Of course, there will not be straightforward calls. Victims will be calling in and asking, “But what about this?” or “Can you tell me this?” to get more information. There will be complexity in the calls that come in and the response to them. There needs to be resourcing for that, and there may be a knock-on to wider victim services, because there will be questions that fall out of that and through to the victim services support sector.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Clare Moody: Those powers are welcome. One of the points about the new powers is the reporting. It is about aligning what is going on with those powers. Where police and crime commissioners have a responsibility for antisocial behaviour reviews, how does that align with the work of the Victims’ Commissioner? With all of this, it is about making sure that there is simplicity in the system for victims and that there is not duplication, and aligning things. For example, as police and crime commissioners, we do local reporting through the local criminal justice boards, and we report into the Ministry of Justice through that. How does that sit alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that there is not a multiplicity of reports and we are pointing in the same direction of benefits and changes that we need to see for victims?
Genna Telfer: Yes, it has to complement what PCCs are doing through the local criminal justice boards. Any additional support we can get to work with partners is welcome. As was described earlier, ASB is definitely not just an enforcement issue; it is the whole partnership piece. We welcome the additional powers around housing. As Clare said, it has to complement what is going on locally.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Clare Moody: I cannot comment on future spending and where that will go. We would share the view that resourcing matters for the helpline. The nature of services is that they generate demand. It is not just about services for the helpline; it is about wider victim services support. That is for funding decisions that are beyond my remit.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Clare Moody: As a police and crime commissioner, I am always going to ask for increased funding.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Genna Telfer: That is always a challenge. It is a challenge that we are trying to work through at the moment in terms of code compliance and how we share information through different agencies. There is a piece of work going on between policing, the MOJ and the CPS to try to work out how we align all our data—how we have the right people giving the right information at the right time, but also access to that data.
The first thing is whether the data is right. There is a whole piece of work going on in the MOJ at the moment around data auditing and checking. The second thing is how the communication is happening. We have just launched a joint communications framework between policing and the CPS, which gives our witness care units practical examples of what they communicate and when. In future, we would like, potentially, to look beyond that to go into probation and expand it further. There is another piece of work ongoing around technology and how that could assist us to do some of this. That is subject to funding, because none of that comes cheap, but absolutely, the intention is to try to align that as much as possible. There will probably always be some gaps when you are transferring from one agency to another, but as much as we can, we are trying to join it up, so that the victim gets the right information, ideally from the right place.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Genna Telfer: Yes, absolutely.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?
Genna Telfer: Obviously it is not something we are trained in, or something we do, so there would be a whole training implication. We do use spit hoods—that is probably as close to that that we get, in terms of putting something over someone’s head, but that does not affect sound and even those are quite controversial, so they are used quite sparingly. It is difficult, because if we did not do that, we are back to the disruption point and potentially removing people straightaway for contempt of court.
On the legality, I do not know—it is something that we would have to have a look into. If it were agreed, it would need to be checked whether it was legal, and then there would be a whole range of training. But that is not something policing would do; it would be the Prison Service involved in that, rather than us.
I can talk about my own experience. I was an officer safety trainer, so I have quite a lot of knowledge and, again, that would be really difficult to do. We use leg restraints, handcuffs and things, but to restrain someone effectively and to gag them to move them into a courtroom, I think would be really challenging.
Clare Moody: I go back to the point that I was making earlier about not making this a theatre show. I think that would somehow make it a spectacle, and it puts the perpetrator at the centre of all the attention. As I said earlier, this is about justice for the victims, and I think that there would be real problems with that. Adding to the points that Genna made about the practicalities of it, making a show of it, or making theatre in the courtroom, I do not think is the appropriate thing to do.
Jack Rankin
Q
Genna Telfer: Yes.
Jack Rankin
Q
Genna Telfer: It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.
Jack Rankin
Q
Clare Moody: I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.
Jack Rankin
Yes—sorry. That is why in the amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?
Genna Telfer: I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case.
Clare Moody: I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that.
Genna Telfer: I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Q
Genna Telfer: We obviously have really close working relationships with our partners. There should always be a number of people around the table trying to work out the best option to deal with these cases—from a problem-solving point of view, not just in the short term. Rather than just solving the immediate problem by, for example, moving people from one address to another, they might ask, “How do we manage this for the future?”
In my experience, I do not think there is an unwillingness from housing associations and local authorities to get involved. I think sometimes there are just challenges with being able to resolve some of the issues. The new power for the Victims’ Commissioner on the requirement to give a reasonable response as to why something has or has not been done will be really helpful, because it will provide more transparency and scrutiny of the problems we are trying to resolve. I do not think there is an unwillingness; I just think there are some challenges in the system that make it difficult.
Mrs Blundell
Q
Clare Moody: Not specifically on the legislation piece. I think it is about the agencies working together. We have an example in Avon and Somerset where there are police officers who co-locate with the housing association —they have a desk space in the housing association—and that close working has resulted in closer co-operation on how to manage difficult situations with tenants. There are practical ways you can do things that do not necessarily require the legislation to change, because they are already in place.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Genna Telfer: I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
For the avoidance of doubt, I should explain that I am not Esther McVey. For that, I apologise. None the less, we are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I remind all Members please to switch electronic devices to silent. We will now continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 57
Applications for resolution process to be triggered
Amendment made: 29, in clause 57, page 47, line 12, leave out “the application relates” and insert—
“the question or questions for resolution mentioned in subsection (1) relate”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment provides that a specified competition organiser may only apply under clause 57 if the conditions in clause 57 are met in relation to the qualifying football season or seasons to which the question or questions mentioned in subsection (1) of clause 57 relate.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 57, page 47, line 35, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Condition 4 is met in relation to a qualifying football season if—
(a) a distribution agreement is in force between the two specified competition organisers in relation to the season,
(b) the distribution agreement has been in force for at least the applicable period (see subsections (7) and (8)), and
(c) no distribution order has effect in respect of the specified competition organisers in relation to the season.
(7) Where—
(a) the specified competition organisers have agreed (whether in the distribution agreement or otherwise) a period for the purposes of condition 4, and
(b) both of the organisers have notified the IFR of the period so agreed,
the applicable period is that period.
(8) In any other case, the applicable period is 5 years.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 128, in clause 57, page 47, line 38, leave out “five years” and insert—
“the applicable period (see subsections (7) and (8))”.
Amendment 129, in clause 57, page 47, line 41, at end insert—
“(7) Where—
(a) the specified competition organisers have agreed (whether in the distribution agreement or otherwise) a period for the purposes of condition 4, and
(b) both of the organisers have notified the IFR of the period so agreed,
the applicable period is that period.
(8) In any other case, the applicable period is five years.”
Mr French
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Sir Jeremy, and I welcome back everyone else in Committee.
The clause sets out further details on the circumstances in which the specified competition organisers can apply to trigger the resolution process. The Government have moved on the mechanism within the backstop, which is welcomed by the leagues, but the amendments tabled in my name seek to correct some gaps in the clause. Amendment 130 would allow the relevant leagues to set a different period other than five years for the resolution process to be triggered. Amendments 128 and 129 would also allow the relevant parties to set the appropriate period for triggering the backstop.
The clause matters, not just because of what it allows, but because of what it delays. In particular, it creates a cooling-off period, a requirement that certain preconditions be met before the regulator can become involved in live disputes between football’s governing bodies and competitions. Of the conditions listed in the clause, condition 4 is especially significant. As the Bill stands, condition 4 is met only if the relevant distribution agreement between competitions—for example, between the Premier League and the English Football League—has been in force for at least five years.
We understand why the five-year test was included: the intention is to prevent the Government’s regulator from being dragged into every routine renegotiation, and to ensure that the resolution process is only triggered in relation to long-standing agreements that may have become outdated or contentious. Five years, however, is a long time in football. Broadcasting cycles, financial realities and competitive conditions can change quickly.
In that time, for example, a team such as Luton Town went from playing in League Two in the 2017-18 season, to competing in the Premier League in the 2022-23 season. Granted, the team have now fallen down the pyramid to League One again, but that helps prove that, even with parachute payments being handed out from the Premier League and potentially now being included in the resolution process, that does not stop a club from failing on the pitch or in the boardroom.
I therefore tabled amendments 128 to 130, which would allow the “applicable period” under condition 4 to be shorter than five years when two conditions are met: first, when the specified competition organisers have agreed a different period, either in the distribution agreement itself or separately; and, secondly, when both organisers have notified the regulator of that agreed period. In that case, the “applicable period” for the purpose of condition 4 becomes whatever period the organisers have agreed—rather than being fixed at five years by statute.
These are flexibility amendments, which an industry with businesses will benefit from, rather than having the inflexibility of fixing a date in statute. The Government argued that our earlier amendment to cap the pay of their new regulator was inflexible and too firmly rooted in the present day, so it would be unfortunate if the Minister were to oppose the amendment for exactly the opposite reasons. None of us would want that.
The amendment allows football’s governing bodies—the Premier League, the EFL, and others—to determine their own timelines for when they believe the regulator should be able to step in, if negotiations breakdown. It does not force earlier intervention; it simply allows the option where both parties agree. That is a consensual, common-sense reform that respects the autonomy of football’s existing institutions, while giving them the tools to resolve disputes more efficiently when necessary. It makes the clause more responsive, less rigid and more capable of reflecting the fast-moving dynamics of football finance and league relationships.
Will the Minister confirm why the Government chose to fix the five-year period in primary legislation, rather than allowing the competitions to define the appropriate timeline for regulatory intervention themselves? Does she agree that, if both parties are asking for an earlier resolution window, it is counterproductive for the legislation to prevent it? It would cause delays to the redistribution of money from one specified competition to another, which would entirely undermine the point of the regulator. If we do not pass the amendment, we risk locking football into a situation where, no matter how bad a deal becomes or how outdated a distribution agreement appears, the regulator’s hands are tied for another half a decade. They say that a week is a long time in politics, and the same is true for football. In half a decade’s time there could be—and I hope there is—a new Government, and Charlton could have returned to the Premier League and may even be in the Champion’s League final—I will try to keep it realistic; the sun must be getting to me.
As drafted, the Bill allows prolonged stalemates, growing financial resentment between divisions, and a continued lack of reform, even when both sides might privately want the regulator’s help to resolve matters. That is especially important given the recurring tensions between the certain specified competition organisers on financial redistribution, among other things. If both sides were willing to allow the Government’s regulator to assist earlier, we should facilitate that, not block it.
Regulation, especially in this context, should be a last resort, and football must be given the space to sort out its own affairs where possible. The amendment reflects that principle. It does not force the regulator into a situation early; it simply allows football competitions to agree that if things go wrong, the regulator can be invited in sooner rather than later. That is not interference but empowered self-governance, which is what we should be striving for when—as the fan-led review ultimately sought to do—we return the governance of English football back to the FA. The amendment gives clubs and competition organisers more ownership of the process, not less.
Does the Minister recognise that the amendment would incentivise early engagement and constructive negotiation, rather than prolonging the stalemates that have now become common place? Clause 57 is an important procedural gateway, but the current wording of condition 4 imposes a rigid five-year rule that may prevent the regulator from acting, even in cases where both sides want its help. The amendment would introduce flexibility and consent into the process. It ensures that the trigger point for resolution reflects the needs of the game, not an arbitrary statutory timescale set many seasons before it may actually be needed.
The amendment is limited, reasonable, and entirely in keeping with the Government’s desire for a targeted, proportionate, and respectful form of regulation. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment based on the position she has taken on earlier amendments to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will use the opportunity presented by amendment 130 to talk to another of this Government’s changes to strengthen the Bill. The Opposition amendments would amend clause 57, which sets out how and under what conditions a league can apply to the regulator to trigger the backstop.
We will discuss clause 57 in more detail in the next group, but in brief, one of the conditions for triggering the backstop is that there has been no new distributions agreement between the leagues for at least five years. The amendments seek to reintroduce drafting from the previous version of the Bill that allowed leagues to reach an agreement to extend that five-year period. The Government removed that drafting when we introduced the Bill, because in our judgment five years is an appropriate period.
Our strong preference, of course, is for football to reach an agreement without any regulatory involvement. We have done everything in our power to push for an agreement and continue to urge everyone to find a solution that works for all of football. The five-year period in the Bill has been chosen to ensure the regulator can only intervene in cases where a sufficient agreement has not been reached for a significant period of time. We believe that this is the correct amount of time.
That is not to say, however, that the backstop will be triggered every five years. This is not the only threshold that has to be met to trigger the process. It is a two-stage test. The regulator must also see a tangible risk to its ability to deliver its objectives before the process can be triggered. If the leagues agreed a good deal for a period longer than five years, while a league could still apply to trigger the backstop, the threshold of jeopardising the regulator’s objectives would not be met and the backstop would not be triggered.
There is an inherent imbalance of negotiating power between the distributing leagues and the recipient league. Allowing industry to contract out of the backstop completely could inhibit agreements that appropriately finance the football pyramid while preventing involvement from the regulator. That would badly damage the regulator’s ability to protect and promote the sustainability of English football and leave it unable to address what is currently a clear issue in the industry. For the reasons I have set out, I hope the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup will withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 57 sets out a basic set of conditions that must be met for a league to be allowed to apply to the regulator and request that the backstop be triggered. The regulator cannot unilaterally trigger the backstop process; it must receive an application from one of the leagues under clause 57. This clause sets out that a regulated league can apply to trigger the process if there are unresolved issues between it and another league in relation to the distribution of relevant revenue. We discussed the definition of relevant revenue when we debated clause 56.
For a league to apply to trigger the backstop, at least one of the four conditions outlined in clause 57 must be met. Those four conditions are as follows: no distribution agreement is in place between the relevant leagues; there has been a material reduction in the amount of relevant revenue received by a relevant league since the last distribution agreement was reached; there has been a material change in circumstances in relation to the relevant revenue received by one or both relevant leagues since the last distribution agreement was reached; and at least five years have passed since the last distribution agreement between the relevant leagues came into force.
Each of the conditions is designed to mitigate a specific risk to the sustainability of the pyramid. Those are a complete absence of any distribution deal; a reduction in distributed revenue; a significant change in the circumstances surrounding distributions; and an old deal no longer fit for purpose but unable to be refreshed because the industry cannot agree. The conditions set an appropriate framework for when a league can apply to trigger the process. They help to avoid vexatious applications or fishing expeditions when a perfectly good, up-to-date industry deal is already in place. That is why clause 57 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 specifies procedural steps and requirements. The applicant league has to comply with those for its application to trigger the backstop to be valid. Before making an application, the league must first notify the other relevant league and the regulator of its intention. That prevents either league from being blindsided by the process being triggered. The notice must list the issues in dispute, explain why one of the relevant conditions in clause 57 is met, and invite representations from the other specified competition organiser. That act, in and of itself, may help to trigger useful discussion between the leagues, as clearly outlining the issues preventing an agreement from moving forward will bring the leagues closer to compromise. After the other relevant league has had a chance to make any representations, the applicant league may apply to the regulator to trigger the process. It must include the other league’s representations with its application. That ensures that the regulator has the information that it needs from both leagues, so that it can make a considered decision on whether to trigger the backstop. The exchange of representations is also an early opportunity for the leagues to come to an agreement themselves, before the process is triggered. Ultimately, this clause is about creating transparency and promoting dialogue, which sets the tone for the rest of the backstop process.
Clauses 57 and 58 together outline the requirements that must be met for a league to apply to trigger the backstop process. The requirements in clauses 57 and 58 are just the first hurdle that a league has to clear in order for the regulator to consider its application. In order to actually trigger the backstop the regulator then has to assess whether the application meets certain legal tests set out in clause 59, which we will discuss further in a later group. I beg to move that clauses 57 and 58 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Applications under section 57: procedural and other requirements
Amendments made: 30, in clause 58, page 48, line 7, at end insert—
“(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which it is intended the application will relate,”
This amendment provides that a notification under clause 59(1)(a) must set out details of the question or questions for resolution to which it is intended the application will relate.
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 48, line 8, leave out “the application relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”.
This amendment provides that a notification under clause 59(1)(a) must specify the qualifying football season or season to which the question or questions for resolution relate.
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 48, line 12, leave out paragraph (c)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 33, in clause 58, page 48, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) set out details of the question or questions for resolution mentioned in section 57(1) to which the application relates,”
This amendment provides that an application under clause 57 must set out details of the question or questions for resolution to which the application relates.
Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 48, line 23, leave out “the application relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”.
This amendment provides that the application under clause 57 must specify the qualifying football season or season to which the question or questions for resolution relate.
Amendment 35, in clause 58, page 48, line 27, leave out paragraph (c)—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Clause 58, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Decisions by the IFR on applications under section 57
Amendments made: 36, in clause 59, page 48, line 33, leave out “the qualifying football season or seasons” and insert “one or more of the questions for resolution”.
This amendment provides that the IFR must decide whether the resolution process should be triggered in relation to one or more of the questions for resolution to which the application under clause 57 relates.
Amendment 37, in clause 59, page 48, line 33, after “relates” insert “(or a modified version of one or more of those questions)”.
This amendment provides that the IFR may decide that the resolution process should be triggered in relation to a modified version of one or more of the questions for resolution set out in the application under clause 57.
Amendment 38, in clause 59, page 48, line 36, leave out “qualifying football season” and insert “question or questions for resolution”.
This amendment provides that the IFR must be satisfied that the conditions in clause 59(2) are met before deciding to trigger the process in relation to a question or questions for resolution.
Amendment 39, in clause 59, page 48, line 38, leave out “that season” and insert “each season to which the question relates or the questions relate”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 59, page 48, line 41, after “triggered” insert “in relation to the question or questions for resolution”. —(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 59, page 49, line 1, after “(c)” insert
“has exercised any of the IFR’s other functions under this Act in order to resolve the question or questions for resolution and such question or questions remain unresolved, or”.
It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I will pass this over to the Minister. This is just an attempt to slightly clarify and strengthen the role of the regulator and the point of intervention. It would be helpful to see how this fits in with the way that the Minister has reconfigured the clause with her amendments.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment. We will discuss clause 59 in more detail in the next group. It sets out the tests that must be met for the regulator to justify accepting a league application so that it can then trigger the backstop. The amendment adds to clause 59 to give the regulator an additional basis on which to justify triggering. It could accept an application to trigger the backstop if it has tried and failed to resolve the disputed distribution issues using its other regulatory functions. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the amendment is not necessary. Clause 59 already allows the regulator to accept an application to trigger if it considers that its other functions would not be able to resolve the disputed issues in a reasonable timeframe. That appropriately covers the scenario set out in my hon. Friend’s amendment.
If the regulator has already tried and failed to resolve a distribution issue using its other functions, that would be a reasonable basis for it to conclude that its other functions were not up to task. The existing test in clause 59 could then be met and an application trigger at the backstop could be accepted. It is important to clarify once again that the regulator would not be triggering the process itself. This is simply a clarification regarding a situation in which an application was submitted and the regulator had tried and failed to resolve the issue outlined previously using its other powers. In this situation the regulator would still have the discretion as to whether or not it triggered the process based on whether the application met the other high threshold. I hope this provides some reassurance. We will discuss this a little further in the next group.
Mr Betts
We are off to a good start this morning. I am 100% convinced that the Bill already does what I was seeking it to do. I hope we are 100% convinced on the other issues that we debate later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 41, in clause 59, page 49, line 4, after “triggered” insert “in relation to one or more of the questions for resolution”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 38.
Amendment 42, in clause 59, page 49, line 10, at end insert—
“(4A) Where the IFR is minded that the resolution process should be triggered, the IFR must consult the Football Association on the question or questions for resolution in relation to which it is minded to trigger the process.”
This amendment requires the IFR to consult the Football Association on the question or questions for resolution in relation to which it is minded to trigger the process.
Amendment 43, in clause 59, page 49, line 15, at end insert—
“(zi) the question or questions for resolution in relation to which the IFR is triggering the resolution process,”
This amendment provides that the notice under clause 59(5) must set out the question or questions for resolution in relation to which the IFR is triggering the resolution process.
Amendment 44, in clause 59, page 49, line 16, leave out “the resolution process relates” and insert “that question relates or those questions relate”.
This amendment provides that the notice under clause 59(5) must set out the qualifying football season or seasons to which the question or questions for resolution relate.
Amendment 45, in clause 59, page 49, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (ii)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 43.
Amendment 46, in clause 59, page 49, line 18, at end insert—
“(iia) how the IFR has taken account of any representations, copies of which accompanied the application under section 57 by virtue of section 58(5)(d), in setting out that question or those questions, and”
This amendment requires the IFR to set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b) how it has taken account of any representations when setting out the question or questions in relation to which it is triggering the resolution process.
Amendment 47, in clause 59, page 49, line 20, leave out “the question or questions for resolution” and insert “that question or those questions”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 43.
Amendment 48, in clause 59, page 49, line 21, at end insert—
“(5A) Where any of the questions for resolution set out in the notice differ from those to which the application made under section 57 relates, the notice must set out the extent of, and reasons for, those differences.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment requires the IFR to set out the extent of, and reasons for, any differences between the question or questions for resolution set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(ii) and the question or questions for resolution set out in an application under clause 57.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
As we discussed on clauses 57 and 58, the backstop can be triggered only in response to an application by a league. Clause 59 sets out how the regulator will assess an application to trigger, how it will decide whether to trigger at all and how it will determine exactly which issues need to be resolved under the backstop. The backstop has been carefully designed to deliver the right outcomes with minimal regulatory involvement. As part of this, it has been designed to be used as a last resort. That is why this clause introduces high statutory thresholds that must be met in order for the backstop to be triggered.
In particular, the clause sets out that the regulator must have reasonable grounds to suspect that its ability to advance at least one of its objectives would be jeopardised if the backstop were not triggered. The regulator must also consider whether other regulatory tools could be utilised to resolve the issues instead. The regulator must be satisfied that at least one of the conditions in clause 57—which we have already discussed —is met.
Mr French
I will be brief. I echo some of the Minister’s comments. His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome any efforts to ensure that the backstop process is triggered only as a last resort and we will carefully monitor how that works in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
The mediation stage
Amendments made: 49, in clause 60, page 50, line 4, after “resolution” insert
“set out in a notice under section 59(5)(b)(zi)”.
This amendment clarifies that the question or questions for resolution subject to the mediation process are those set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(zi).
Amendment 50, in clause 60, page 50, line 6, leave out
“the question or questions for resolution”
and insert
“that question or those questions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 51, in clause 60, page 50, line 15, after “resolution” insert
“set out in a notice under section 59(5)(b)(zi)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment clarifies that the question or questions for resolution subject to the mediation process are those set out in a notice under clause 59(5)(b)(zi).
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Once the backstop is triggered, clause 60 requires the leagues to enter mandatory mediation as a first stage. As we have made clear, the Government’s strong preference is for a football-led solution to the financial distribution issues. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments along those lines.
A mediation stage gives the relevant leagues an opportunity to reach an agreement with minimal intervention from the regulator. The stage is designed to facilitate meaningful negotiation and compromise between the parties. To this end, it encourages the leagues to appoint a mutually agreed mediator, but if they cannot, it ensures the regulator will appoint someone with the appropriate skills and experience.
The leagues can end the mediation process for multiple reasons. Most notably, the mediation—and the process as a whole—will end if an agreement is reached. However, the mediator can also end the process if it is not producing meaningful, good faith negotiations. The process can also end if it reaches the 28-day deadline. If the leagues are engaging in meaningful discussion but the deadline is reached, the mediator can extend the process by up to another 28 days.
We believe that process is flexible enough to encourage negotiation but concrete enough to ensure the backstop remains an effective regulatory intervention. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Final proposal stage
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 61, page 50, line 40, leave out
“require any final proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence”
and insert
“require any final proposal to—
(i) be accompanied by supporting evidence;
(ii) be consistent with the resolution of any relevant issues identified in the Regulator's most recently published State of the Game report;
(iii) give effect to the views of any relevant specified competition organiser which has not been invited pursuant to clause 61(4)(c) to submit to the committee a final proposal; and
(iv) advance the Regulator's objectives in section 6, consistent with its general duties and Regulatory principles in sections 7 and 8.”
This amendment would set additional requirements to accompany any final proposal for the resolution process.
This is quite an important issue, because it concerns the principle and basis on which the regulator comes to a decision. My amendment simply sets out certain things that the regulator must have regard to and take into account when making that decision.
First, there should be supporting evidence—that seems straightforward. Secondly, and importantly, we ought to keep anchoring what the regulator does back to the essence of this proposed legislation and the regulator’s purpose. Clause 6 very clearly sets out the regulator’s objectives of promoting the financial soundness of regulated clubs and the financial resilience of English football, and I think we can all agree that that is what the regulator should be doing and seeking to achieve.
Surely, therefore, when we are talking about the detail of how the regulator reaches a final decision on the backstop, we ought to be absolutely clear that it must have foremost in its mind those initial objectives. Otherwise, what is the point of the regulator and its objectives? Why are we in this Committee if not to address the financial soundness of clubs and English football as a whole?
My amendment mentions considering the views of others who may not be formal parts of the backstop mediation process. It provides that the regulator would not have to listen to them, but could
“give effect to the views”
of the Football Supporters’ Association, the Professional Footballers’ Association or others who may have views. Those groups would not determine what the regulator decides to do, but surely the regulator has to take account of their views.
I hope that the Minister gives serious consideration to at least making sure that, when reaching that final and absolutely crucial decision on financial distribution, the regulator’s aim should be to deal with the problems of the financial soundness of clubs and the overall financial soundness and wellbeing of English football.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for his amendment. Although we are still keen for an industry deal on distributions, part of getting it right is ensuring that the regulator is best placed to act if needed. As the Government amendments that we are due to debate in the next two groups show, we have reflected on many of the same points. We think it is right that any distribution order shows how it aligns with the findings of the state of the game report and with the regulator’s objectives and duties, including the duty to have regard to its regulatory principles.
That is why Government new clauses 3 and 4, which amend the final stages of the backstop, already address these issues. We will discuss the new clauses in more detail shortly, but they clearly require that the regulator sets out any relevant findings from the state of the game report and that any league proposals include evidence about how they address those findings. They will also require that any order the regulator makes addresses the state of the game findings, and they highlight the importance of the regulator’s objectives and its general duties, including the regulatory principles.
I also make clear again that, after we set out the competitions in scope of the regime, the regulator’s objectives, namely to protect and promote the heritage and financial resilience and soundness of English football, will apply to the top five divisions of English men’s football. When creating a distributions order between any two leagues, the regulator must have due regard for the wider impact the order may have on all the clubs and leagues it regulates. The regulator must make an evidence-based decision that takes into account all relevant considerations, and its final decision must advance its objectives.
It is also important to clarify that, while the order will be limited in scope to the questions set out when the process is triggered, it will not be without context. Given the important role a satisfactory distributions order will play in the future of the entire sport, the regulator will need to come to a solution that works for all of football.
For those reasons, I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendment, but I hope that his concerns will be appropriately addressed by the Government amendments that we will debate shortly.
Mr Betts
I am pleased to see that the Minister actually read my amendment and formulated her new clauses accordingly. What she says is reassuring. As she just said, there is no point in the regulator doing a state of the game report unless it has regard to it when coming to a view about financial distribution. That is absolutely clear from what the Minister has said, and that is what the regulator must do. On the basis of those assurances, 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
Over the course of engagement on the Bill, specifically in the other place, we have heard concerns about the risk posed by the binary choice distribution mechanism outlined in the Bill. While I have always acknowledged the merits of the previous binary mechanism in the Bill, specifically the powerful incentive it created for the leagues to come to an industry-led solution, we want to provide the industry and its investors with the certainty they need. Although the previous model had significant strengths, the uncertainty it introduced into the process made it higher risk than other options.
We want to get this policy right and we will always be open to sensible, well-made points on the design of the regime. I thank Lords Birt, Pannick, Thomas and Burns for their thoughtful scrutiny of this part of the Bill in the other place and for their comprehensive suggestions. Their engagement has been invaluable in the continued development of this policy.
In the light of that work, we are making targeted changes to the backstop mechanism, primarily through the replacement of clauses 61 and 62 with Government new clauses 3 and 4. The new clauses will move the mechanism from a binary choice mechanism to a staged regulator determination. In our new model, the regulator can impose its own solution, drawing on the leagues’ proposals, the state of the game report and other evidence in order to best deliver the regulator’s objectives. This ensures a more collaborative, data-driven solution.
New clause 3 sets out what happens if there are still unresolved questions between the leagues when mediation ends. It requires the regulator to invite proposals from the leagues and sets a framework and timeframes for the regulator and leagues to collaborate towards a solution. The Government’s strong preference is for the industry to come to an independent solution, so the proposal stage is designed to incentivise that. The regulator will have to outline clearly the expected scope of the proposals, set by the questions for resolution that we have discussed previously. It must also set out any relevant findings from the state of the game report. That will ensure that proposals remain focused on addressing the most pressing issues facing the game.
League proposals must be shared both with the regulator and between the disputing leagues themselves. That will allow for a more fruitful negotiation, as the leagues will be more informed about each other’s position on core issues. Leagues will also be able to submit revised proposals, ensuring both sides have the best chance possible to outline their position to the regulator, and allowing the regulator the opportunity to request additional relevant information.
That structure will ensure the regulator is in the position to make the best and most evidence-based decision possible while driving the leagues closer together, encouraging them to come to their own agreement. For those reasons, I hope hon. Members will support the new clause.
Mr French
I will not repeat the comments the Minister has made, but we also believe that this new mechanism is an improvement on the previous one, in line with feedback from the other place and from the leagues. The new clause would allow modified proposals to be submitted to the football regulator and for more of a negotiated settlement rather than a binary one. The only question we have at this stage, because we will have to see how this works in practice, is about the criteria the regulator would be looking to apply when selecting one party’s proposals over another. What does the Minister envisage that will look like?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his general support for this change. He is absolutely right to acknowledge that it comes from the other place, but also from working with various stakeholders, in particular the leagues, which have welcomed it.
The regulator must follow its objectives and duties at all times and criteria that simply restate those obligations are unnecessary. We did consider more specific criteria but did not want to be overly prescriptive, so I draw the attention of hon. Members back to the regulatory principles in the Bill and the state of the game report.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 61 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 62
Distribution orders
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 62, page 52, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) must address to the satisfaction of the Regulator any issues identified by the Regulator’s most recently published State of the Game report.”.
This amendment would add the principle that the final proposal in the resolution process should address any issues identified by the Regulator’s most recently published State of the Game report.
Amendment 126, in clause 62, page 52, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 141, in clause 62, page 52, line 11, leave out from “means” to “in” in line 13 and insert
“the first full football season in respect of which relegation revenue would be applicable”.
Amendment 5, in clause 62,, page 52, line 43, at end insert—
“(8A) Where subsection (1)(c), (4)(b), or (5) applies, the committee must make an order requiring the relevant revenue to be distributed in accordance with a proposal of its own that is consistent with the principles in subsection (2) on or before the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the final proposal deadline.”.
This amendment would require the IFR, under the circumstances specified in the amendment, to make an order requiring the relevant revenue to be distributed in accordance with its own proposal.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 54, 70 and 73.
Government new clause 4—Distribution orders.
Mr French
Clause 62 is, in many ways, the most far-reaching and contentious provision in the Bill. It establishes the legal framework by which the Government’s regulator, having assessed final proposals under the new resolution process we have already discussed, may issue a legally binding “distribution order”, thereby compelling parties to adopt a financial redistribution model imposed by the regulator. This is not a minor regulatory power. It is a direct intervention into the financial core of English football. While the desire to resolve long-standing disputes, particularly between the Premier League and the EFL, is understandable, the clause as drafted gives rise to very real risks of overreach, unintended consequences and potential conflict with international football rules.
Let me start with subsection (1 )(c). In the current drafting, if the expert panel finds that neither of the final proposals submitted by the parties is consistent with the statutory principles, it is required to terminate the process and notify the parties that it has done so. That is not an option; it is a legal requirement. We must ask what kind of resolution process it is, if both sides present imperfect proposals and the committee’s only course of action is to walk away. That is not resolution; that is resignation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The shadow Minister is speaking very clearly, and I agree with him on the potential for political interference. Does he also see within the clause any scope for market distortion because of the powers that the regulator has?
Mr French
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I note that the Football Association sent a letter to Bill Committee members over the weekend, highlighting its concern about scope creep and how that may also interfere with what the regulator is meant to be tightly governed to do.
I would like to think that we would rather solutions were made within football. It is important that backstop powers are a clearly defined last resort and that the process encourages the principle of bodies working together to find a joint solution. Let me be very clear: by defining “relegation revenue” in statute and bringing parachute payments into scope, the Government risk triggering exactly the kind of interference that UEFA explicitly prevents in its statutes. Amendment 126 would remove subsection (3) in full. That would not abolish the regulator’s ability to consider fair distribution; it would simply make clear that internally agreed mechanisms, such as parachute payments, fall outside the regulator’s remit.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On parachute payments, what is the shadow Minister’s view on the balance between sustainability and giving clubs a competitive advantage? Does he not think that the regulator could have a role to play in determining the extent to which parachute payments, which have grown considerably, are getting to the point at which their size distorts their purpose?
The Chair
Before the shadow Minister responds, I remind the hon. Member for Rushcliffe that the dress code requirements for Committee are the same as for the Chamber, which means a tie must be worn. I cannot see the hon. Gentleman wearing one. If he would like to put one on before he next seeks to intervene, that might make things easier.
Mr French
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point; I will move on slightly while he seeks his tie and then come back to his question.
We believe that such mechanisms should fall outside the regulator’s remit unless or until the parties themselves choose to make it part of a proposed solution. We believe that is a reasonable balance: it respects the autonomy of leagues, avoids placing English football at odds with UEFA compliance and helps ensure that the regulator remains focused on its core mission of financial sustainability and integrity, not financial redistribution imposed by decree.
Mr Betts
On the issue of parachute payments, as the Minister will recall we had this debate in the equivalent Committee in the last Parliament. It is absolutely fundamental. Let us go back to the objectives of the regulator, which include:
“to protect and promote the financial soundness of regulated clubs…and…of English football.”
How can it be sound that over 90% of the funds in English football go to the top 25 clubs, and that, of the money that the Premier League gives out, 80% goes to those clubs on parachute payments? There is a problem, is there not?
Mr French
As I was explaining, our preference would be for the leagues to use their autonomy to reach a conclusion. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I will move on.
Building on this, there remains a broader point that we have sought to create through a number of amendments to the Bill, and one that we fear the Government consistently leave the door open to—the likely empire-building of the Government’s regulator. We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep, as is the FA in the letter referenced earlier. If this Government’s regulator expands into broader aspects of football governance, it could undermine established structures and processes of the sport. The inclusion of parachute payments in this clause, and the inflexible process in subsection (1)(c), are classic examples of the very scope creep that other regulators fear.
The clause, as it stands, is not just a domestic issue; it is a risk to England’s standing within European football, as we have said before. The Government must remember what the Bill is supposed to do. It is about ensuring that clubs are run sustainably, that fans are respected and that football’s heritage is protected. It is not about the Government’s imposing financial structures or about overriding the autonomy of leagues. It is certainly not about placing us on a collision course with UEFA and FIFA.
UEFA has made clear the potential compliance risks from the Bill, and it has warned of the ultimate sanction: exclusion from UEFA competition. Are this Government and this Minister truly prepared to jeopardise English clubs’ participation in Europe? Is the Minister so confident in her regulatory model that she is prepared to put English football on a different legal footing from that of every other UEFA member, and have English football cast out from international football? I hope not—the clubs will also hope not and the fans will not forgive it, if that were to happen.
Clause 62 is the most interventionist part of the Bill. If we are to retain it, we must amend it by removing subsection (1)(c) to allow the expert panel to act with realism and discretion. We must remove subsection (3) to ensure that parachute payments and, by extension, football’s autonomy remain protected. These are not wrecking amendments but safeguards. They ensure that the Bill delivers what it promises: a sustainable and respected football regulator without overreach, scope creep or crossing the line into political interference. We believe that the Government must take the warnings seriously about the impact on international competition. As a Committee, let us ensure that this Government’s regulator supports the game, rather than risks its place on the international stage.
Mr Betts
I want to speak to amendment 141, which has been tabled in my name. To some extent, amendments 4 and 5 have been superseded, and I accept what the Minister said earlier about the arrangements in Government new clause 4 being a significant improvement on where we were before with the pendulum arrangements in the backstop. Also, they are a distinct improvement on where the last Government were, because they allow the regulator to look at parachute payments in a particular way. That is really helpful, because we cannot address the massive disparity of funding within football, and the cliff edge that exists between the Premier League and the Championship, without addressing the issue of parachute payments.
I want specifically to look at amendment 141, because it is about timing. I want to go through what I think is the time period that we will now move towards. If the Minister thinks that I am wrong, it would be helpful if she would explain that to me. Hopefully, if we get the Bill through before the parliamentary recess, and it comes into effect fairly quickly, the regulator can begin work next season. I hope that is the intention. In the first season, 2026-27, it is probable that the regulator will be bedding in—having discussions, getting arrangements with clubs, and trying to work towards the beginnings of the licensing system. I am speculating because we do not absolutely know, but it seems to me that is the sort of way we will go.
The regulator will also be starting to work on the state of the game report; hopefully, therefore, the regulator might have it by the end of 2026. Perhaps we could do it a bit quicker—we have encouraged the Minister to make it 12 months rather than 18. But assuming that the report takes 18 months, it will appear towards the end of 2026. When is the regulator likely to be in a position to implement a backstop, if that is deemed necessary? The regulator will be having discussions in the meantime, hopefully trying to encourage the leagues to reach an agreement. Best of luck with that! If the regulator does that in a year when previously it has failed over many years, it will have done a fantastic job and I am sure we will congratulate it. But if there is not an agreement, we will get to the backstop probably at the beginning of the 2027 season at the earliest.
The problem is that because of how “relevant period” is described in new clause 49, there will then be basically two years before the backstop kicks in. On that basis, this Parliament will not see any significant distribution of funding in English football. That will not come in until the 2029-30 season, after the end of this Parliament, because of the two-year gap between the regulator reaching a decision and then the backstop being implemented. Why, if we have gone all through this process?
We know what the problems are in the English football game. We know about the massive disparities of income and about the concentration of money not merely in the Premier League but in the parachuted clubs as well. The regulator has a responsibility to address the soundness and stability of English football and of clubs within English football. We know that the Championship clubs are massively overburdened with debt, as they all try desperately to compete to get into the Premier League. If all that is the problem, and the regulator is bound to address it, does address it, and decides the leagues have not resolved it so comes to implement a backstop, why then do we sit back and wait for two years for the backstop to be implemented? That is the issue. Having failed to stop the regulator and the inclusion of backstops within their remit, it almost seems as if the Premier League has decided, “Well, at least we can stop any of this happening in this Parliament in the hope that after the election another Government will come in and save us.” It is almost as though that is what it is trying to do.
I say to the Minister, kindly and carefully: have a think about this. There is an awful lot of concern—not just in the English Football League, but among colleagues. Clubs throughout the EFL have been speaking to their local MPs and saying, “We know what the problems are. We are electing you to Parliament to resolve those problems, and you committed to do that in your manifesto. Yet with this timescale, the likelihood is that by the time you get to the end of this Parliament you won’t have solved the problem. You won’t even have put anything in place to do so.”
At the end of this Parliament, I would like the Minister to be saying, “I am the Sports Minister who has substantially helped resolve the appalling distribution of finances in English football, which cripples our game and means that clubs are exposed to enormous cliff edges that put them unnecessarily into debt, and which leads to bad practice among owners.” There are many things to stop bad practice, but we could help by resolving the issue now and agreeing on something: not how the regulator should do its job, but that once the regulator has done the job it is at least allowed to implement within a timely period.
I hope the Minister will seriously consider amendment 141 and listen to other colleagues who may want to discuss these issues as well.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak in support of amendment 141. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East has made a compelling case for its necessity. The Bill has a clear purpose, and we believe it broadly does the job. That is why we support it. Changing the previous version to include the parachute payments within scope is the right thing to do for redistribution of funds from those who can afford it, down to the smaller and lower league clubs that really need the help. Those are the people the hon. Member for Sheffield South East referred to. Those of us who represent football league clubs are being asked to do the right thing—to back the regulator to ensure that there is financial sustainability in the lower divisions.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I make my usual declaration of interest, which is that I am a member and former chair of the RamsTrust. I rise to speak in support of amendment 141, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.
The purpose of the Bill is to protect and promote the sustainability of English football. Parachute payments are arguably the greatest source of systemic unsustainability within the game at the moment, and must therefore be addressed as urgently as possible. I have made this point on a number of occasions, because it is incredibly personal to me and other Derby County fans: parachute payments nearly cost Derby its football club. We came within hours of disappearing completely, because we had an owner trying to compete with clubs that had parachute payments, and that became entirely unsustainable.
Championship clubs are currently relying on owners, on average, for about £16 million a year. That means that the Championship is unsustainable, because it is trying to compete with the Premier League and parachute payments. We either accept that the game is for the whole country, all 92 league clubs and all the non-league clubs, or we think it should be run in the interests of the Premier League. I fundamentally think that our game is a national game and is far too important for us to sit back and allow a small number of elite clubs to decide its future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made a really strong case for his amendment. The timescales will mean that we could well be looking at the next Parliament. This is the Premier League trying to kick the can down the road in the hope that they never have to comply with it. I fear the unsustainability of the game will mean that in that period, we could lose other clubs. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s amendment.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, be that as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club or, as of this morning, a newly re-elected member of the Pompey Supporters Trust board.
In the Bill under the previous Government, as we have heard, parachute payments were ruled out. I welcome, along with many fans, the change brought by the Minister to allow the regulator to look at those payments. Because of that, I know that Labour has strengthened the backstop, and, importantly, now puts it within the scope of the Bill. The change comes in part 6, where the critical issue of financial distribution is discussed. That is a key element of the Bill for my football club, Portsmouth, and other English Football League clubs, as it is impossible for club sustainability to be achieved unless there is a change to how money is distributed across the game.
However, like other Committee members, I have one area of concern that I would like to seek clarification on, and it is linked to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s amendment 141. The Bill proposes a two-year period during which parachute payments cannot be reduced at all following a distribution order taking effect. Clubs such as Portsmouth believe that that should be halved to 12 months; a two-year window, as we have already heard, could result in the issue of parachute payments not even being addressed during this term of Parliament.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister give details of this timeframe, and of the possibility of the IFR having the ability to determine for itself the right approach to payments to regulated clubs, rather than having a set timeframe? Could she also comment on the role that reports such as the state of the game report may play in financial regulation?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wanted to take this opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s amendment 141. It speaks directly to the principle at the heart of this Bill: ensuring a sustainable and fair future for football clubs throughout the pyramid, including those at the very heart of our communities.
The current structure of parachute payments, where clubs relegated from the Premier League receive tens of millions more than their counterparts, is a major contributor to systemic unsustainability. Those payments—£48.9 million in year one and £40.1 million in year two—create a gulf that clubs in the Championship must try to bridge, not with balanced support but with risky financial manoeuvres. The result is dependency on volatile owner funding, something that we have seen tragically unravel at clubs such as Bury, Wigan, and, of course, Derby County.
The backstop mechanism that the Government are introducing in the Bill is absolutely the right approach, providing a necessary and independent means for resolving disputes in financial distribution. But the two-year protected period on parachute payments really does risk hampering the ability of the new independent football regulator to respond with the urgency that is often required.
When the Bill was first published back in October, the understanding among many clubs, including my own local club of Grimsby Town—I declare no official interests, although it is important to our local community and is one of the teams in the lower leagues that really feels the financial strain from unfair distribution—was that the protected period would be set at 12 months rather than two years. Amendment 141, as I read it, simply seeks to reflect that original expectation.
Allowing for a one-season window still gives the regulator the discretion to proceed carefully, while also preserving the flexibility to act more swiftly should the need arise. This is about fairness, and also about credibility, because, if we are to empower the regulator, we should not be artificially constraining it before it begins its work.
I am grateful for the Minister’s attention to detail and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East’s contributions so far. I really think that the spirit of amendment 141 aligns with all our shared ambitions to build a financially sustainable game. It is a constructive proposal, and I hope that the Minister gives it serious consideration.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship Sir Jeremy. I remind the Committee of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Unlike the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, I chose my tie with purpose this morning, to celebrate both the fact that this might be the last day of the Bill Committee and also events in Atlanta last night.
What we have seen is the thin end of the wedge. I am alive to the arguments about the disparity that parachute payments create in the overall economy of football. However, this Bill is undoubtedly the thin end of the wedge. It will come as no surprise to Members that I am a Conservative, and therefore I think the best form of regulator is competition. We all just ought to watch, because if the regulator has parachute payments within its purview, what is next? It will be agents’ fees, TV rights carve-ups, finishing position bonuses and cut prize money. Seeking to run football as some sort of socialist command economy will come unstuck. I put on record my concern that that is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.
Stephanie Peacock
The amendments deal with the final stage of the backstop mechanism. I will respond to the shadow Minister, and then I will respond to the wider debate, including to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East.
The final stage of the backstop mechanism is when, if the leagues have not been able to agree a complete deal themselves, the regulator will make an order to resolve whatever issues remain. That stage is set out in clause 62, and Members have tabled amendments relating to their concerns about the existing clause 62. The Government have tabled new clause 4, which would entirely replace clause 62, so the shadow Minister need no longer be troubled by many of the concerns he has set out. He was particularly bothered by clause 62(1)(c), but that will be taken out in its entirety. Our new clause 4 addresses many of the concerns reflected in hon. Members’ amendments, and I hope I can satisfy the Committee that new clause 4 is a positive change to the final stage of the backstop.
We should remember that by this stage of the backstop process the regulator will have assessed an application and representations from the leagues, set out the scope of the backstop by defining the questions of resolution, and highlighted the relevant findings in the state of the game report. The leagues will have been through mediation to resolve those questions. They will have been asked to exchange proposals to solve any questions outstanding after mediation, giving them another opportunity for compromise and negotiation.
New clause 4 sets out how the regulator will create a distribution order as a last resort if, after all those stages, the leagues cannot strike a deal. The regulator will first have 60 days to create a provisional order. We expect that during that period it will engage with the leagues as necessary to keep the process as collaborative as possible. Even at that stage, the regulator can continue to encourage an industry deal. Unlike the binary “winner takes all” model in clause 62, new clause 4 allows the regulator to design its order based on the evidence and drawing on any league proposals submitted.
The order the regulator designs must adhere to clear principles: it must not place an undue burden on league commercial interests; it must observe a delay before any reduction in parachute payments—I will address that in a moment; it must have regard to any duly submitted league proposals; and it must explain how it addresses relevant state of the game findings. The regulator’s objectives and general duties are paramount.
The leagues will then be able to submit representations on the provisional order. That feedback will help the regulator to shape an order that works for industry. The regulator will consider the representations and finalise all that into a full distributions order. That order will take into account any relevant issues raised by the state of the game report, the evidence that the regulator has gathered throughout the process, the engagement it has had with the leagues and any proposals they have submitted. The regulator will be best placed to design a solution that addresses the problems it identifies and delivers on its objectives.
If the backstop reaches that point, it is because the industry has failed to strike a deal, but we still want the solution to be as industry-led as possible. The regulator will be required to have due regard to the league proposals submitted. It can choose to directly lift aspects of the proposals into its order, but it is not required to adopt a league proposal wholesale. That is a slightly more flexible system that moves away from the inherent risk of a “winner takes all” model, and allows the regulator to carefully design a solution.
The model also allows for more evidence-based and data-driven decisions. It gives the regulator enough discretion to ensure that any order is as effective as possible in addressing the core financial issues facing the game. We are confident that the regulator, keeping in mind its objectives to promote sustainability and its duties to avoid adverse effects on growth and sporting competitiveness, can come to a balanced solution.
I thank everyone who has engaged meaningfully with this part of the Bill throughout its passage to help us to reach this version of the model. I am confident that the new approach is the right one. In light of that, I hope that Members will support the addition of new clause 4 and the consequential Government amendments in this group.
On the non-Government amendments, I will first address those tabled by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and then those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East. Opposition amendment 125 addresses the regulator’s ability to terminate the distribution process if it does not receive a viable proposal from either league, but Government new clause 4 already gives the regulator discretion to deal with that scenario. As I have said, under new clause 4, the regulator need not accept either league’s proposal wholesale. It can design its own solution, drawing on the league proposals as appropriate. We think that greatly increases the chances that the process will reach a satisfactory conclusion, and ensures that football will not go without a distribution deal. On that basis, I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister said that just because the Bill enables the regulator to consider parachute payments, that does not mean that it will. The Minister is in the unique position of being the person who is going to appoint the football regulator, because the Secretary of State has stood down from that decision. Will the Minister ask the person selected to be the regulator whether they would like to exercise the power—whether “can” will mean “will”?
Stephanie Peacock
I will discuss that in more detail in a moment, but I gently say to the hon. Member that it will not be a personal decision by the regulator; as we have discussed, the regulator will make a decision based on the findings of the state of the game report and will be guided by the regulatory principles. I do not want to get drawn into speculating whether they will or will not do that. We need the state of the game report to be done quickly, so that if the backstop is triggered, the regulator can consider the findings in the whole and make an informed decision.
On amendment 4, as the Government amendments show, the regulator will issue a notice that sets out the relevant findings of the state of the game report, which will need to be addressed by a distribution order, and the order must explain how it addresses those findings. We are absolutely aligned on the intention behind amendment 5. This exact change—to ensure that the regulator need not adopt league proposals wholesale but can instead design its own solution—is core to new clause 4.
Amendment 141, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, seeks to shorten the transition period for parachute payments. While a timely distribution order is a priority, we must ensure that there are adequate protections for relegated clubs, to prevent a cliff edge. That is why the Bill guarantees that there can be no reduction at all in parachute payments, for an absolute minimum of one year from the end of the first season to which a distribution order applies. Shortening that period would give relegated clubs less time to plan financially, putting them at greater risk of financial trouble. That is, after all, the issue we are seeking to address through the legislation. I know that may not be the answer that my hon. Friend wants, but for those reasons I hope he will withdraw his amendments.
Mr Betts
I am still not quite sure how—given that all clubs now know that a regulator will be appointed, that the leagues and clubs know that financial distribution is at the heart of the Bill, and that a club can be promoted during the two-year period—any club can start preparing for that situation. At the beginning of that period, the club would not know whether it was going to get parachute payments, because it could be promoted and relegated in that period. I do not think the idea holds that two years gives certainty to clubs.
I am really worried about the idea of signalling, at this stage, that there will potentially be no change in financial distribution until the end of this Parliament. I do not know how far the Minister has thought that through, but if we want to encourage the Premier League and the EFL to sit down and reach an agreement—if that is the preferred way forward, and I think it is—surely the idea that the process can be extended by not reaching an agreement until beyond the next election is an incentive for the Premier League to do nothing. It is waiting for the pressure to come off, and the way to relieve it is simply to do nothing and hope that it goes away after the election.
Clearly, that pressure will go away if the Conservative party wins the election and implement a Bill with parachute payments not included in the regulator’s remit. That is what will happen. We were all elected to achieve change, and the change that most fans want to see is the addressing of the fundamental disparity within the English game that produces a cliff edge and all the problems in the Championship. We know how those problems need to be addressed: with the regulator’s powers in this excellent Bill. Why sit for two years after the regulator makes a decision and do nothing, when to give a year is fine?
The Minister has heard comments and concerns from hon. Friends today—Committee members who obviously have a great deal of interest in football in general and in their clubs in particular. Will she agree, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham asked, to take the matter away and give it further consideration? I do not want to push the Minister here and now on the words in my amendment, but I do want her to give an understanding that she recognises that there is a problem that needs to be addressed to satisfy her colleagues.
Stephanie Peacock
I assure my hon. Friend that I have thought about it carefully—that was a fair challenge. Indeed, when in opposition, I tabled an amendment to the previous Government’s Bill. I think we have very much strengthened the legislation by ensuring that parachute payments are in scope. We thought it odd to have a Bill on the financial sustainability of football without including them. That is why this Government have strengthened the Bill.
I completely acknowledge the strength of feeling on the matter. I say again that the regulator can consider it, but that does not necessarily mean that it will. It will need the evidence in the state of the game report. I appreciate and completely understand why hon. Members have shared examples from their own clubs, and are speculating on the impact of parachute payments, but that is not my role today. It is up to the state of the game report and the independent regulator to come to that decision, if the backstop is triggered.
Mr Betts
Would the Minister not therefore give the regulator a discretionary power to decide when it should be implemented, after either one year or two years? We will have a regulator who will be on top of the job and will have seen all the issues and evidence, in detail that we cannot see in Committee. Will the Minister consider giving flexibility and discretionary powers to the regulator?
Stephanie Peacock
No, I am afraid I am not in a position to do that. It is a one-year period from the end of the first season to where the order applies. We think that is a balance. It is obviously a challenging issue, with strong feelings, but formulating this part of the Bill is about striking a balance. We believe we have the right one, but I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Mr French
Given the previous debate, the Minister will be pleased that I am willing to withdraw amendment 125, so she gets a win out of that one. I listened carefully to her comments on removing that subsection (1)(c), and, in the light of that and in a spirit of goodwill, I will withdraw the amendment.
It would be helpful if the Minister would explain what checks and balances there will be surrounding the football regulator’s final determination. The legislation will leave it entirely up to the football regulator how best to determine the questions of resolution, with the only guardrail seemingly being that the distribution order should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of any specified competition organiser, and the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made. It would also be helpful if the Minister could outline whether either of the parties would be offered the right of appeal, following a distribution order from the regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
We will come to about appeals and challenges shortly, so we might be able to explore that in further detail. I have a detailed breakdown of the process; in the interests of time, I will not read it out, but I will send a copy to the hon. Gentleman, because I think it will answer his question.
The Chair
We now come to the decisions on amendments 141 and 5. Does the hon. Member for Sheffield South East wish to pursue either of them?
Mr Betts
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. She has generally been very helpful in trying to acknowledge concerns when they have been raised, and in agreeing to have a look at them. I will not press my amendments to a vote at this stage, but I will bring them back on Report.
The Minister is entirely reasonable and open-minded on these matters, and has engaged in discussion on all sorts of things, but I worry that a handful of clubs in the Premier League are determining what happens with distribution orders, which is disappointing. I will return to this issue in due course, because I do not think the Minister’s approach on this clause has been how she has approached the rest of the Bill. I am disappointed, but I will not press my amendments to a vote.
Clause 62 disagreed to.
Clause 63
Duration and revocation of distribution orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
It is important to build safeguards into the backstop process, and clause 63 outlines what happens if circumstances arise in which a distribution order made under clause 62 is no longer viable or necessary. To provide clarity to the leagues, any distribution order will need to specify when it comes into force and how long it is in force. In ordinary circumstances, an order will remain in force until the specified period ends, but clause 63 allows the regulator to revoke an order in exceptional circumstances. The regulator might choose to do that if there was an unexpected change to the broadcast market that meant an order was no longer fit for purpose. It is important that the Bill provides that flexibility to prevent a scenario in which an unsuitable arrangement is left to stand.
Similarly, the clause ensures that the regulator will revoke an order if a league subsequently strikes a distribution deal covering the same seasons as the order. That again demonstrates the Government’s commitment to prioritising and encouraging industry-led agreements wherever possible. Whenever the regulator revokes an order, it will need to notify the parties and set out the reasons for its decision, continuing the underlying commitment to transparency at every stage of the process. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr French
I have only a brief question for the Minister in the light of her comments: how frequently does she envisage distribution orders being reviewed by the regulator, and is there a risk that clubs or competitions may face financial instability due to short-term changes to distribution orders?
Stephanie Peacock
Not very often, is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, and it might be helpful if I give a brief example. If there was a very significant reduction in broadcast revenues, complying with an order might actually threaten the sustainability of clubs in the distributing league. It is not a measure we expect to be used frequently.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Review of distribution orders, payment of costs, etc
Amendment made: 54, in clause 64, page 54, line 18, leave out “62(8)(b)” and insert “(Distribution orders)(10)(b)”. —(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
For the backstop process to be viable as a regulatory solution, it needs to be legally enforceable. The clause sets out that, once the regulator has made a distribution order, it must keep the relevant leagues’ compliance with the order under review and monitor whether there is any need to take enforcement against the relevant leagues if they do not comply. Without this power, the sustainability issues that the backstop seeks to address will remain present.
Although constructive engagement with clubs will be the regulator’s default first step, the clause references its ability to take enforcement action, as outlined in part 8 of the Bill, to ensure that a distribution order is upheld. Furthermore, the clause allows the regulator to make rules on how costs associated with the backstop are to be paid. That could, for example, allow it to pass on the cost of mediation to the leagues. Finally, the clause also explicitly highlights the ability, at any stage, for the leagues to come to an alternative agreement.
It is important to reiterate that the distribution order is a last resort power, only to be used in cases where football cannot come to an agreement itself. If the leagues reach an agreement to resolve the issues in dispute before the backstop process concludes, the regulator will not impose an order. If they reach an agreement after the backstop has run its course, the regulator must revoke its order. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
The clause requires the regulator to periodically review distribution orders and monitor compliance. It also gives the regulator power to determine who should bear the costs of the resolution process, including mediation and the final proposal stages.
I have the following questions for the Minister. First, who is liable for the cost of reviews, and is there a cap on the expenses that can be passed on to clubs? Secondly, what criteria will determine how costs are apportioned between parties? Lastly, will the regulator be independently audited on its cost management in conducting such reviews to minimise the costs for clubs?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for those questions. As I said, the clause sets out the rules for how costs associated with the backstop are paid. It could, although it does not have to, allow for the costs of mediation to be passed on to the leagues. If it is helpful, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail. The clause sets out the regulator’s ability to pass the cost on to the leagues if it feels it is appropriate, but I reiterate the regulatory principle of proportionality.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Power to require information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 65 is the first clause in part 7 of the Bill, which covers the regulator’s investigatory powers, and relates to information gathering. It gives the regulator a power to require specified information and sets out the associated procedures for obtaining the information.
Accurate, reliable and timely information will be central to the regulator’s regime. Without a full and up-to-date picture of clubs and the market, it would not be able to regulate effectively. It would be reliant on voluntary disclosures or publicly available information, which could be incomplete, outdated or selectively presented. That is why the power in the clause is important to the regulator’s regime. The clause gives the regulator the power to issue an information notice to a person, requiring the person to give the regulator specified information that it considers necessary in exercising its functions. For example, the regulator may require information in order to monitor clubs and investigate possible non-compliance with the regulatory regime.
The ability to request information is not a unique or controversial power for a regulatory body. It is common practice among regulators to seek information from the regulated industry and from those subject to investigation. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom and many more all have information gathering and investigatory powers, which they use regularly. Such powers are regulators’ bread and butter, without which they would be unable to effectively regulate. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
Clause 65 allows the regulator to require persons, including clubs and their officers, to provide information that may be needed for the exercise of the regulator’s functions.
I have the following questions for the Minister. First, what are the limits on the volume or sensitivity of information that the regulator can demand from clubs? Secondly, could the clause lead to regulatory overreach if requests are too frequent or expansive? Lastly, how will the cost of compliance be managed, especially for smaller clubs?
Stephanie Peacock
We acknowledge that this is a new regime for football clubs to be operating under. They already submit information to the football authorities, and we expect that submitting information to the regulator should not be any different.
As with anything it does, the regulator should act proportionately. In this context, that means that it will consider the burden that an information request might place on a club. For example, the burden might be higher for a smaller club, so the regulator might also consider the nature of the information request. For example, the volume and nature of the information required might differ depending on the circumstances of the club.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Reports on clubs by expert reporters
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clause gives the regulator the power to appoint a person to prepare a report on a regulated club. The person is referred to as an expert reporter, and they must have the necessary skills and expertise to prepare the report. The regulator will have expert staff and the ability to request the information it needs, but this power will allow it to draw on specialist third-party expertise and resources. For example, the expert reporter might be a firm with audit experience, where the regulator thinks that it would benefit from the firm’s ability to synthesise and analyse information gathered from the club at first hand. That could enable the regulator to exercise its functions more effectively.
The report can be on any matter that the regulator considers appropriate in order to carry out its functions. For example, the report might deal with a specific issue or with the club’s circumstances and operations more generally. The expert reporter will have the ability to require information from as many persons as necessary for the purpose of preparing the report.
The clause also covers other procedural matters relating to the appointment of the expert reporter, including rules on expenses incurred in the appointment of the reporter and requirements to co-operate with and assist a skilled person once appointed. There is precedent for such a power: the Financial Conduct Authority, for example, has the power to appoint a skilled person to a firm.
We expect that the regulator will find the power useful when it would benefit from the expert reporter’s skills to combine and interpret information gathered at first hand or on a more continuous basis over a period of time. Based on a report, the regulator may be better informed to determine whether it needs to take action on a club, or which action to take—for example, whether to impose a discretionary licence condition or to take enforcement action. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
As the Minister outlined, the clause gives the regulator the power to appoint an expert to prepare a report on a club. I have three questions for her. First, who will select the expert reporters and how with their independence be assured? Secondly, will there be cost limits or reimbursement rules in place to prevent financial strain on clubs that are required to co-operate? For example, without naming any individual companies, over the years we have seen many examples of excessive costs being applied by certain accountancy firms for such reviews. I am sure that we would not want those overburdening small clubs. Lastly, will clubs have a right to comment on or challenge a draft of the report that the expert provides before action is taken?
Stephanie Peacock
The regulator will be able, if it is thought appropriate, to provide for the club concerned to cover the costs associated with the expert reporter. That is because it will not be a commonly used tool and the cost will be specific to a single club, so, rather than all clubs picking up the cost through the levy, where possible, the regulator can ensure that the regulated party pays. However, the regulator will have discretion, and it might be the case that the club’s financial means are low and the regulator does not think it appropriate to impose additional costs on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Meaning of “relevant infringement”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 7.
Clause 68 stand part.
Government amendment 65.
Schedule 8.
Clauses 69 to 74 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
This group of clauses and schedules covers the meaning of “relevant infringement”, investigations into any relevant infringements, and the regulator’s investigatory powers.
Clause 67 explains the meaning of “relevant infringement” for the purposes of the Bill by reference to schedule 7. Relevant infringements are breaches of the requirements set out in the Bill and can be investigated and enforced by the regulator. Schedule 7 sets out the cases in which a relevant infringement is committed and the persons who can commit such an infringement, which could be a club or competition organiser, but also senior individuals at a club.
The fan-led review made it clear that it was vital that those in senior positions at clubs—those who make the damaging decisions that hurt clubs—were made subject to sanctions by the regulator. That is why we have ensured that the regulator may investigate and enforce on not only clubs and owners of clubs that may commit a relevant infringement, but officers and senior managers of the club.
In addition to the information offences, which we will debate in due course, the infringements in schedule 7 are a comprehensive and complete list of the possible non-compliance that might occur in relation to the Bill and the regulator’s regime. They include failure by a club to comply with a licence condition; failure by an owner to comply with a direction to cease to be an owner; and failure by competition organisers to comply with a distribution order.
The regulator may apply sanctions in response to a relevant infringement being committed, in accordance with the enforcement provisions in the Bill, but any conduct that is not listed in schedule 7 as a relevant infringement will not warrant enforcement action by the regulator. A closed list of possible relevant infringements on the face of legislation provides up-front clarity to the regulated industry and other persons as to what conduct is not permitted. It also clarifies the limits of the regulator’s enforcement regime.
Clause 68 gives the regulator the power to undertake an investigation if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant infringement has been committed. Powers of investigation are necessary to facilitate effective evidence-based enforcement. Such powers are commonly exercised by regulatory bodies across a wide range of industries. Any enforcement action the regulator takes must be based on sound evidence. The regulator does not need to carry out an investigation before taking enforcement action if it has sufficient evidence through other means. However, the regulator will need to be able to exercise investigatory powers in cases where it does not yet have sufficient evidence to decide whether to take action.
The specific investigatory powers of the regulator are set out in schedule 8. Like the general information-gathering powers in earlier clauses, the powers are exercisable only when the regulator opens an investigation into whether a person has committed a relevant infringement. The powers will enable the regulator to obtain the relevant information that it needs to look into suspected non-compliance with its regime. It has two investigatory powers: the power to ask questions of or interview any individual, and the power to enter business premises under a warrant issued by the courts or the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Those are proportionate powers that are common across other statutory regulators; for example, the Financial Conduct Authority, Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority all have similar investigatory powers.
Clause 68 also sets out important procedural requirements in respect of an investigation. Specifically, the regulator is required to give notice to a person under investigation explaining the matter being investigated.
Clause 69 sets out the potential outcomes of an investigation by the regulator. When investigating, the regulator must determine whether a relevant infringement has been committed and whether there is a reasonable excuse for doing so. The regulator can close an investigation by issuing a closure notice if no infringement is found to have taken place. The notice must clearly set out the regulator’s decision and the reasoning behind it. If the regulator decides that a relevant infringement has been committed, it can take enforcement action, which we will discuss in the next group.
Clause 70 enables the regulator to accept a commitment from a person under investigation in relation to their behaviour in certain circumstances. That means that, instead of carrying on with the investigation and potential enforcement action, the regulator is able to accept a binding commitment in lieu of the investigation. For example, a club could come forward during an investigation and offer to take certain action itself to rectify a possible infringement. The clause is intended to help facilitate a participative approach in place of formal investigation and enforcement. I want to reassure the Committee that a commitment is not a way that clubs can dodge scrutiny from the regulator, or reach settlements behind closed doors in order to avoid sanctions. The regulator is not obliged to accept a commitment and is still free to investigate different behaviour, even if a commitment is accepted.
Clause 71 is supplementary to clause 70 and sets out further detailed procedures for accepting, reviewing, varying and releasing a person from a commitment. It sets out safeguards, including to keep commitments under review to ensure that they remain effective, necessary and appropriate, as well as to issue notices when taking action on commitments, which may be published in the interest of transparency.
Clause 72 imposes a duty on persons to preserve information that may be relevant to an investigation. That means that a person who knows or suspects that an investigation is being conducted or is likely to be conducted must not destroy, dispose of, falsify or conceal relevant information. As set out in schedule 9, which we will come to in the next group, failure to comply with the duty could be met by civil or criminal sanctions.
On clause 73, information is crucial to the work of the regulator. I have discussed the powers the regulator will have to obtain the information it needs. However, those powers will not cut across legal professional privilege. The confidentiality between professional legal advisers and their clients is an important protection and it would not be appropriate for the regulator to interfere with that. That is why the clause clearly sets out that the regulator cannot require any person to produce, generate or provide it with any privileged communications.
Transparency has always been a key principle when designing the regulatory regime. Clause 74 requires the regulator to publish certain notices related to investigations. The specific requirements in the clause build on the general regulatory principle of transparency in clause 8. Requiring notices to be published will enable transparency and clarity in respect of the regulator’s investigations.
Government amendment 65 to schedule 8 will ensure that the regulator can conduct investigations thoroughly and without imposing unnecessary burdens. At present, if the regulator obtains information when entering business premises under a warrant as part of an investigation, it can only keep that information for three months. On reflection, we think that is an unnecessary and arbitrary restriction. While the regulator must strive to carry out investigations promptly, we do not want the process to be curtailed artificially and risk affecting the quality or thoroughness of the investigation, nor do we want the regulator to be forced to burden clubs with repeat requests for the same information simply because the three-month deadline has passed. It is in the interests of all parties that the regulator follows best practice on the retention of information taken under warrant, including the Home Office powers of entry code of practice. This is why we tabled the amendment to remove the three-month timeframe. I urge the Committee to accept it.
Mr French
The provisions in this group all relate to infringement and the enforcement of infringements. Schedule 7 sets out the detailed definition of what constitutes a relevant infringement for the purposes of parts 7 and 8 of the Bill. It provides clarity on the types of conduct that may lead to investigation and enforcement action by the football regulator, including failure to comply with a duty under the Bill, a condition of a licence or a direction issued by the regulator. The schedule also enables further types of infringement to be specified through regulations. The intention is to provide a clear and comprehensive basis for the regulator’s investigatory and sanctioning powers.
Does the Minister think there are sufficient limits in schedule 7 to prevent the scope of relevant infringement from expanding over time without parliamentary scrutiny? Could broad definitions allow the regulator to pursue cases not originally envisaged by Parliament? How will consistency in interpretation be maintained across different clubs and cases?
Clause 68 allows the regulator to investigate whether a relevant infringement has occurred. It sets out the procedure to be followed and the types of action the regulator may take during an investigation, including seeking information and issuing notices. The clause forms part of the regulatory enforcement framework. What procedures are in place to prevent investigations from becoming unnecessarily protracted or burdensome? Could smaller clubs face disproportionate challenges in dealing with investigations due to limited resources?
Schedule 8 outlines the investigatory powers available to the football regulator in relation to relevant infringements. It includes the power to ask questions, require documents or information, and apply for a warrant to enter premises where necessary. The schedule also sets out the circumstances in which those powers may be used and the procedural safeguards that apply. The powers are designed to assist the regulator in establishing the facts of a case and determining whether enforcement action is appropriate. The provisions reflect standard regulatory practice and are intended to ensure that investigations are conducted in a proportionate and lawful manner. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that investigatory powers are not used disproportionately? Could the powers result in unnecessary costs or disruption to the day-to-day operations of clubs?
Clause 69 covers the outcomes of investigations. The clause sets out that the football regulator may find that there has been no infringement or, if it finds that there has been an infringement, that it may decide to take no action —possibly because the person had a reasonable excuse for committing the infringement. In what circumstances does the Minister envisage there to be a reasonable excuse, and does she worry that this risks setting a dangerous precedent? If an individual is found to have had a reasonable excuse, will that encourage others in the leagues to consider using that excuse if they are investigated? How will the outcome of an investigation be communicated to the relevant club or individual? Will the outcomes of investigations be publicly available? Once again, clause 69 raises important questions about consistency. If closure notices or outcomes are not published, what mechanism will there be for ensuring that investigations by the regulator are consistently applied?
Clause 70 sets out that the football regulator may accept an appropriate commitment from a person during the course of an investigation into certain relevant infringements. Does the Minister anticipate that that will be a regular feature? If so, what effect will that have on the football regulator’s ability to conduct an investigation? The clause clarifies that accepting a commitment does not prevent the regulator from continuing an investigation into different behaviour in relation to the same or a different relevant infringement, or starting a new investigation in relation to the same behaviour to which the commitment relates. It is therefore for the regulator to determine whether to continue the investigation. What criteria will be used to determine whether a commitment should defer or withhold investigation? Does this leave scope for inconsistencies in the approach of the regulator? If a commitment does not prevent the regulator from starting a new investigation into the same behaviour, it raises the question: why add another layer of bureaucracy when the ultimate result may be the continuation of said investigation?
Clause 71 adds provisions to clause 70. For example, it sets out that the football regulator must give the person a notice as soon as reasonably possible after it decides to accept, or not to accept, a commitment in lieu of investigation, and sets out what the notice should state. Can the Minister clarify how this notice will be given to individuals at a club? It also clarifies that the football regulator may accept a variation to a commitment, provided the varied commitment would still be appropriate. What is the process an individual would need to go through to amend or vary a commitment? Furthermore, it sets out that the football regulator may release a person from a commitment and must give the person a notice as soon as possible after deciding to do so. Many of the factors that the football regulator must consider are at its discretion, such as reviewing the appropriateness of a commitment. That raises further questions about consistency and the importance of making unbiased decisions.
Clause 72 places a duty on individuals under investigation to preserve information. The clause is key, but how will a person suspect they are subject to an investigation? Furthermore, the clause does not provide a date range up to and from when an individual must preserve relevant information. Will the football regulator adjudicate on whether information has been disposed of on purpose or accidentally? Likewise, will the regulator determine whether a document is falsified or authentic? The phrase “relevant” is broad, and it is open to interpretation by the regulator.
Clause 73 ensures that privileged communications are to be protected from the football regulator’s requirements. That is extremely important, as it covers communication between a professional legal adviser and their client to do with legal proceedings. However, will the football regulator have any powers to challenge claims that a communication is privileged? I would appreciate if the Minister could clarify whether that is a possibility. Furthermore, who will verify that a communication is privileged? Could the football regulator seek voluntary waivers of privilege in exceptional circumstances? What assessment has been made of the potential of the clause to inadvertently delay or obstruct investigation?
Clause 74—you will be pleased to know that this is my last point, Sir Jeremy—requires the football regulator to publish a notice where it has given a person an investigation notice under clause 68 or a closure notice under clause 69. Is there a timescale for such publication? How will the notice be communicated or published? Will it be publicly available? If so, will full details of the investigation be published, or will some material be redacted or withheld? Will there be an opportunity to appeal before publication to avoid reputational damage? Will clubs or individuals have the right to respond with advance warning prior to publication, if that is the case?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. I noted as many down as I could, but I will endeavour to check Hansard if I do not cover all of them. First, he spoke about scope creep. I draw his attention to my comments earlier about how any conduct that is not listed in schedule 7 as a relevant infringement will not warrant enforcement action, and how we believe a closed list of possible relevant infringements in legislation provides clarity to the regulated industry and other persons as to what conduct is not permitted. The scope therefore cannot expand. I absolutely agree that things should be done in a timely fashion. In debates on the Bill, we have talked continually about proportionality, and we would expect cost and disruption to be kept to a minimum.
On the shadow Minister’s point about reasonable excuse, I draw his attention to my previous comments that it is not about sidestepping responsibility, but about being collaborative throughout. We expect the regulator will publish some information about investigations that it undertakes. It is required to publish an investigation notice issued to a person under clause 68, as well as an investigation closure notice under clause 69. However, the Bill allows for certain information to be withheld from publication if the regulator believes the disclosure or publication would significantly harm a person’s personal or business interests. The regulator is not required to publish revenue and customs information or information that might contravene data protection legislation or prejudice the prevention of crime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Investigatory powers
Amendment made: 65, in schedule 8, page 109, line 14, leave out “a period of three months” and insert “so long as is necessary in all the circumstances”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment provides that information obtained by the IFR under a warrant may be retained for so long as is necessary in all the circumstances.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Sanctions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 9.
Clauses 76 and 77 stand part.
Stephanie Peacock
Together, the clauses and schedule in this group cover the sanctions available to the regulator for a variety of infringements, and the procedure for taking enforcement action. Clause 75 sets out the enforcement actions that the regulator may take and the sanctions that it may impose, by reference to schedule 9. We expect that the regulator will seek to pre-empt and address instances of non-compliance through constructive engagement where possible, but that will not always be appropriate. That is why this clause empowers the regulator to reach for stronger and more direct tools, and gives it the mandate to use them boldly when necessary.
The range of sanctions set out in schedule 9—sanctions of varying type and severity—will help the regulator to deter any non-compliance with its requirements. In particular, they include “name and shame” censure statements, and financial penalties. Where relevant, these sanctions can be applied to individuals making the decisions at clubs, as well as or instead of the clubs themselves. This can act as a better deterrent and avoid indirectly hurting fans. The regulator will also have the ability to appoint a skilled person to a club where relevant, to help the club to return to compliance. This presents a less punitive and more assistive enforcement tool for certain circumstances that call for it.
Schedule 9 also provides for the ultimate sanction—suspension or revocation of an operating licence. That can apply to either a provisional or a full licence, but it has a very high threshold for use, in that one or more of the “aggravating conditions” specified in the schedule must be met. We do not expect the regulator to need to reach for this sanction, particularly given that it can target owners and officers at clubs first. However, it is a necessary part of a licensing system, and a deterrent for the most egregious behaviour—for example, the threat of clubs joining a prohibited breakaway competition.
Clause 76 requires the regulator to give a warning notice before it takes any enforcement action. This is common practice and ensures a transparent and fair process by providing early warning and an opportunity for the target to make representations. Clause 77 requires the regulator to issue a decision notice once it has considered any representations received on the warning notice. The decision notice will set out whether the regulator has decided to take enforcement action and, if so, what that action is. As set out in clause 80, which we will debate in the coming groups, the regulator is obliged to publish warning and decision notices, to ensure complete transparency.
Mr French
Sir Jeremy, you and the Committee will be pleased to know that I will not seek to repeat word for word everything that the Minister has said on each of the clauses, but I will pose a number of questions to her on each of them.
As we have heard, clause 75 gives the football regulator the power to impose sanctions in response to relevant infringements. How is proportionality assessed when deciding between different types of sanction? What is the estimated administrative cost of monitoring, imposing and reviewing sanctions? What legal protections are in place to prevent sanctions from being used punitively?
Clause 76 requires the regulator to issue a warning notice before imposing a sanction. The notice must set out the proposed action and give the person an opportunity to make representations, which is welcome, but is there an independent review mechanism if a club believes that a warning notice is unjustified?
Clause 77 requires the regulator to issue a decision notice, following a warning notice, if it decides to proceed with a sanction. The decision notice must explain the reasons for the decision and the right of appeal. Is there a process to allow clubs to challenge decision notices before they are published? What legal advice and support will be available to smaller clubs facing regulatory action?
I will move on to schedule 9, regarding sanctions overall. This schedule sets out further details on the sanctions available to the football regulator. Part 1 deals with sanctions related to information failures, including financial penalties and censure statements. Part 2 concerns infringements of substantive duties and conditions and includes suspension or revocation of licences and the appointment of a skilled person. Part 3 contains further provisions regarding financial penalties, including about daily rate calculations and enforcement of penalties as civil debts.
The schedule supports the enforcement powers in clauses 75 to 78 and provides the operational framework for sanctions. How are the levels of financial penalties determined in order to ensure fairness across clubs of different financial sizes? What checks exist to prevent excessive reliance on fines as a primary enforcement tool? Could any of the sanctions—for example, licence suspension—create unintended consequences for fans and local communities?
The Minister will be aware that I have pointed out in previous sittings the sporting competition impacts of any removal of a licence and how that may or may not affect relegation. We are interested in the Minister’s comments on how licence conditions would work when sanctions are applied.
Stephanie Peacock
The minimum period for representations on a warning notice is 14 days. A warning notice is an important procedural safeguard on the regulator’s enforcement process that ensures that the person in question can make their case. For example, that might be to explain that there was a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. We will talk about appeals in a moment. We have said throughout Committee and other proceedings on the Bill that appeals can be made.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point on cost, as well as the ability to impose significant financial penalties, including fixed penalties of up to 10% of a club’s revenue, the regulator will be able to hold a club’s senior management accountable for the club’s compliance where relevant. That means that, where appropriate, the regulator can take enforcement action against individuals as well as, or instead of, clubs. Targeted enforcement of that kind will be effective in changing behaviour, deterring non-compliance and aligning the incentives of those calling the shots with the club itself. It will also mean that sanctions do not need to unduly punish a club, and so indirectly hurt its fans, when not appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 76 and 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 78 backs up the regulator’s information-gathering powers by creating information offences, including offences relating to the destruction or concealment of information and the provision of false or misleading information. The possible penalties for a person guilty of those offences include a fine or even imprisonment. The ability for the regulator to impose strong sanctions for what are clear offences should deter any person from information-related misconduct that would hamper the regulator. Information offences and sanctions are well precedented among other regulators, and their existence acts as a powerful and necessary deterrent. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mr French
Again, I will not seek to repeat the Minister’s words. Clause 78 creates specific offences for destroying and falsifying information, providing false or misleading information, and obstruction. On summary conviction, a person who is guilty is liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates court, for a fine, or both. On conviction or indictment, a person who is guilty is liable for imprisonment not exceeding two years, for a fine, or both. In relation to those offences, what evidentiary threshold must be met before a criminal offence would be pursued? Could the clause deter voluntary disclosure for fear of criminal liability? What is the projected cost to the public purse of enforcing those offences through the criminal justice system?
Stephanie Peacock
The effect of the clause is that it is a criminal offence to destroy, dispose of, falsify or conceal relevant information; to permit the destruction, disposal, falsification or concealment of relevant information; to provide false or misleading information to the regulator or an expert reporter; to give to another person information that is false or misleading, knowing that the information will be given to the regulator; and to obstruct an officer of the regulator exercising a warrant.
We are talking only about information-related offences, so it is fairly unobjectionable that persons should not be able to conceal or destroy information that the regulator asks for. The potential for criminal sanctions is normal for offences of that kind at other regulators. Those regulators tend not to have to ever use criminal sanctions, but having them available sends a clear and strong message that misconduct related to information will not be tolerated.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Urgent directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 79 will enable the regulator to give urgent directions to respond quickly to a risk of serious harm. These are directions to a person, such as a club, to take or to cease a certain action within a specified timeframe to bring an infringement to an end. Urgent directions will give the regulator a strong tool to intervene quickly where serious, ongoing non-compliance jeopardises the regulator’s objectives.
We expect compliance to be the norm and that, if necessary, most cases of non-compliance can be addressed using the sanctions set out in schedule 9. However, urgent directions will provide a more direct enforcement option to bring the most serious and potentially harmful issues to an end swiftly. Given the urgency, the regulator will not be required to give the person an opportunity to make representations. There is precedent for that among other regulators. The Financial Conduct Authority has similar “voluntary requirement” and “own-initiative requirement” powers. If a person fails to comply with an urgent direction, the regulator can apply to the courts for an injunction.
Clause 80 will require the regulator to publish certain notices and directions related to enforcement. This will ensure complete transparency around enforcement proceedings for fans, the industry and the wider public—something that has been lacking in the industry to date. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Mr French
I have some brief questions for the Minister. On clause 79, what criteria will the regulator use to justify issuing an urgent direction? Is there a risk of overreach if urgent powers are exercised without immediate oversight? Will clubs have a right to appeal or review such directions after the fact?
We believe that clause 80 mirrors clause 74 in providing a general duty for the regulator to publish various notices and statements issued under the Bill. Are there exceptions where publication could be delayed to prevent market disruption or reputational harm?
Stephanie Peacock
An urgent direction will be used only in response to non-compliance that is ongoing and of sufficient seriousness. That is reflected in the statutory threshold for the use of an urgent direction. The threshold—that the infringement must jeopardise or risk jeopardising the regulator’s objectives—is used in multiple places in the Bill as a high bar for more severe actions, for example revoking an operating licence.
A person can appeal against an urgent direction, although, as per the appeals provisions in the Bill, the urgent direction would be binding while the outcome of the appeal was being decided.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon. The air conditioning is doing its usual thing, so if anybody feels the need to strip off, please do so within reason. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from witnesses, do any Members wish to make any declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? Looking around the table, I see that they do not.
Examination of Witnesses
Suky Bhaker, Andrea Simon and Farah Nazeer gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Farah Nazeer: Good afternoon. My name is Farah Nazeer, the chief executive officer of Women’s Aid.
Suky Bhaker: Hi, I am Suky Bhaker, the chief executive of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
Andrea Simon: I am Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision?
Suky Bhaker: Fundamentally, the challenge with the unduly lenient sentence scheme is that victims are not aware of it. Although increasing the timeframe would be beneficial, and increasing the timeframe for Attorneys General when it comes to reviewing the applications certainly would be, we need to address the underlying issues.
We need to get this on a par with offenders’ rights. Offenders are made aware of their right to appeal by counsel immediately, and it is often the witness care unit that informs victims. However, a lot of victims do not fall under that scheme, so would never know that they were eligible. That is what leads them to apply quite late. There are also exceptional circumstances where offenders are able to apply outside of the 28 days. That needs to apply for victims as well, so that there is parity for victims and offenders.
Andrea Simon: Although we are pleased to see that there are provisions around extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme time limit to 28 days in the Bill, we still think it is too short. Our members advocate that it should be extended further to six weeks for the Attorney General, and the 14 days to apply to the Court of Appeal should be extended as well. There definitely needs to be more time.
Getting advice from a criminal barrister is also quite important in these cases. Anecdotally, we have heard from member organisations that there is not enough time for a barrister to look over sentencing reasons. This can sometimes result in judges failing to apply, for example, the dangerous criteria to a sentence, so we think it would make a significant difference if that time was extended.
Farah Nazeer: I do not have a significant amount to add. Suffice it to say that victims—particularly of the abuses we are talking about, including sexual and domestic abuse—are deeply traumatised when they come out of that process, and need sufficient time to make a decision. They also need the right kinds of advice, and to know where to go for that advice. The pathways are often completely unclear and often victims are battling many other factors—ill health, trauma, managing children and all sorts of things. As colleagues have said, absolutely yes, but how about that wraparound support to enable victims to do that in the first place? Doing it is just not possible, even if the provision is there, if you do not have the support to do it.
We have often sought to support victims to apply, and they are just not ready at all in that first month. It is too traumatic—everything is just a fog, a haze. It takes time for that haze and that fog to clear, for your mind to be able to still and for you to think, “Actually, I’m willing to go round this a second time.”
Then the right support has to come into place—not just the legal support, but the emotional and trauma support, knowing that there is somewhere to place your children and knowing that the children will have support through the process. All that is equally important if a victim is to be able to claim justice.
Dr Mullan
Q
First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say?
Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is very much a crime of impact. At Suzy Lamplugh Trust, we predominantly work with victims of stalking and harassment and, as I say, it is a crime of impact, so the victim personal statement is paramount in terms of explaining the effects of the crime, particularly because a lot of them are psychological effects; it is not physical behaviours that we are seeing. We would argue that it is absolutely paramount that victims should be able to take that opportunity and to have the power to voice exactly what that experience has been for them. They are often left powerless within a system, and this is their one opportunity to be able to convey the impact.
Having said that, a lot of victims of stalking choose not to make such a statement because they choose for that information not to be shared with the perpetrator; often, perpetrators receive a sense of gratification in court on hearing about the impact. For us, there has to be a balance—perhaps in allowing victims to produce a statement but it not being available to perpetrators.
Farah Nazeer: I guess that something underlying this is that barristers or solicitors will often advise people to remove things irrespective, because of the way the courts will respond to it. That speaks to a wider and more problematic culture within the court system. I do not think that you can really look at one without looking at the other.
Dr Mullan
Q
Suky Bhaker: You need to take into account the risks for the victims. Some victims would very much like and want the opportunity for the offender to be there, but for other victims of stalking that occasion is an opportunity for the offender to have contact again with them. I guess that there would be concerns from victim survivors about the potential behaviours, or how that perpetrator might play out in a court setting.
Stalking is very much about communication, so putting the victim and the offender in the same room actually fulfils the gratification of the offender on some occasions. However, we absolutely recognise that there is a sense of justice for other victims and that they very much want that offender to be there. You need to take the victim’s view into account.
Farah Nazeer: I have nothing more to add to that; it is the same across all the crimes that we work with.
Dr Mullan
Q
There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not.
Suky Bhaker: We believe it should be extended to any child. Someone who presents a risk to their own children certainly presents a risk to other children. In fact, we would go further and say that it should be extended to include other forms of violence against women and girls as well as offences such as attempted murder.
Andrea Simon: I echo that. We definitely agree in principle with the aims to limit the parental responsibility of men convicted of a child sexual offence. That restriction should certainly be expanded to include serious sexual offending against any child and should not be limited to the individual’s own child. There is a lack of clarity in the proposals about what would happen if a stepchild was abused, for example, so we want to see those loopholes and inconsistencies closed.
Farah Nazeer: I agree. I would add that we think it should be extended further, given how long these things can take for those going through trial, those on bail, those awaiting trial or those being investigated—that is the reality of the vast majority of certainly domestic abuse cases. The consequences of ignoring that are dire. We have a report coming out next week that illustrates the impact on children in terms of harm and death when it comes to making these quite frankly unsafe contact arrangements.
Dr Mullan
Q
Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider.
Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital.
Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement.
Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Q
You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.
Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences.
It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm.
It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
I want to take you on to the victim helpline and the victim contact scheme. Suky, the Bill will for the first time ever bring victims of stalking and harassment into the victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence. What difference will that make to victims and survivors? Could you outline the importance to victims of being able to access timely communication?
Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is about fixation and obsession, so we are often looking at repeat offences and breaches. Receiving timely information about what is happening to the offender through the helpline and the victim contact scheme is essential, because it is a safety mechanism—it is a risk-assessing tool that lets the victim know how they can keep themselves safe—so it is really pivotal that the scope is increased.
Perpetrators of stalking get sentences of about 14 months on average, and many fall under one year, so it is really important that the scheme covers them. Of course, that does not address the systemic issue of whether that is the right sentencing, but it is at least a mechanism whereby victims can receive that information so that they can carry out safety planning and risk management.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Andrea Simon: Although we think it is a step in the right direction—we recognise that the Government have good intentions to extend the victim contact scheme—we think, on the eligibility and scope, that not all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls will be covered. We are not entirely reassured by how viable the helpline will be for many victims. With the helpline, in particular, the onus is on the victim to get in touch and make contact. The responsibility is not on, say, the probation system to inform victims of what is happening. We believe the correct reading of article 56b of the Istanbul convention, which talks about measures of protection, is that the state should actively inform victims when a perpetrator is to be released. People should not have to proactively reach out in order to get that information through a helpline, which we know will be utilised by some, but not in every case.
We also have concerns when it comes to survivor participation and licence conditions for perpetrators, because some survivors only have access to the helpline and potentially do not have the same level of entitlement as those under the victim contact scheme. We would like some clarity about how, when incorrect information is held or there are changes in circumstances, victim-survivors will be able to provide that information and how it can be fed through into the management of perpetrators. There is a slight lack of clarity about who will be informed and where that information will go, and I just think we have to be really clear in the public communications about the helpline, and about the victim contact scheme in general, to make sure that the public understand it, are aware of it and know how to take it up.
We are also keen to see these measures interact with the sentencing review recommendations and what is forthcoming. Of course, one review recommendation that the Government have taken up is to have the domestic abuse flag as an identifier, which is very welcome, but we would like to see the victim contact scheme essentially extended to everybody, because we know that domestic abuse offences are quite often not flagged up. The flag will help in the future, but not every index offence involves coercive control—for example, it might be criminal damage or some other kind of assault. We are worried about people who will not be able to access the information or access the scheme, so we think it should be extended more widely so that there are not gaps that people can fall through.
Farah Nazeer: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I think the helpline is a really strong idea. It is a move in the right direction, but nobody is supported by a helpline when their perpetrator is coming out, so you are having that conversation with the helpline and assuming that the helpline will meet the needs of the expanded victim cohort. Then a victim needs to go to a service. They need regular, routine casework support to support them through the trauma of having somebody come out or maybe come out earlier than expected—all kinds of things. Without the services to support the intentions of the helpline, we will not see that ambition of true victim support realised, so those two things have to work in tandem.
Andrea Simon: We would also recommend that advocates have access to the helpline as well. It is very important that, particularly for those supporting some of the most marginalised survivors, they can access information via the helpline. We would like clarity about their inclusion in the scheme.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Q
Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest.
Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.
Alex Brewer
Q
Suky Bhaker: In terms of the ambitions of the Government to get victims the justice that they deserve, things like greater accessibility and information sharing are all really important. The challenges that we see in our service are the systemic failures through the criminal justice system and victims experiences as a whole. While there are some welcome steps in the right direction in terms of adding to those protections, we need to look at how we have got to the place we have got to in terms of an outcome.
Victims have often reported being really dissatisfied with the police response, from reporting through to the court process and on to conviction. In fact, when it comes to stalking cases, only 1.8% will ever reach a conviction. We are talking about really small numbers. We have to look holistically at the police response, at understanding VAWG crimes, and at investigation risk assessment safety planning, as well as at interpreting the legislation correctly and the use of protective orders. We need to put that protection around the victim and look at systemic change. Rather than information giving, which I think colleagues have spoken to, there needs to be a whole-system approach around the victim.
Farah Nazeer: I think the ambitions are absolutely going in the right direction. The intent is really clear. In terms of the gaps and where the ambitions might not serve victims, there is the omission of the family courts, as I have said already, and the pro-parental contact culture. We need to begin to quite bravely address that, because that is where a huge amount of harm happens. Not including, as is currently the case in the Bill, a statutory duty to fund community-based services is a gap.
I know nobody particularly wants to talk about funding right now, but in terms of ensuring that the ambitions set nationally are actually delivered locally, you need those services in place to support victims, otherwise it will not happen. We can see that from the solid intentions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which included a statutory duty to fund safe accommodation. That was a statutory duty not just to do it but to fund it. But even then, unless things are defined—unless they are really precise—you can end up with a lack of services in spite of that duty. Something without any form of provision whatsoever will not deliver the outcomes that you are seeking to achieve.
Andrea Simon: Overall, there are important provisions—none more so than the ones that campaigners, themselves having experienced abuse, wanted to see in the Bill. But we feel that the Bill itself is relatively narrow in scope, and could be more ambitious, particularly given the backdrop of persistently high rates of violence against women and girls and a chronically underfunded support sector for survivors.
The extent of the challenges as they exist in the criminal justice system for victims and survivors of VAWG are huge, and not everything will be in scope, but there are some important provisions that we feel the Bill could include that would make a difference, particularly to rape victims. These include the poor practice that we are aware of happening in the courtroom around bad character evidence for rape survivors. Some of you may be familiar with what happens when rape survivors are cross-examined and the defence brings up previous disclosures of abuse, and uses that to make out that the survivor is being untruthful, undermining their credibility and character. We understand that is happening because judges are incorrectly allowing a line of questioning.
There is a lack of clarity in the law that could be amended in the Bill. We know that the Bill has a purpose to look at provisions for victims and procedures connected specifically to the administration of justice in prosecutorial terms and functions. We are very clear that there is a worrying trickle-down effect about what is happening at trial and in the courtroom, and what is being used by police and the Crown Prosecution Service as a reason not to prosecute a rape case. We think that is in anticipation of a defence barrister using previous allegations in court against the victim to undermine them.
We already know that that feedback loop exists. We have seen it previously, when prosecutors and investigators were routinely requesting information about victims’ medical and counselling records, and things like that. When they go down that route of trying to bring in evidence that is unrelated to the case—when there is no evidence that they are not real allegations of abuse, but that the case has been dropped or they withdrew from the process—it is disadvantaging victims’ access to justice.
The Bill could deal with that opportunity to increase justice for rape victims if it clarified section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. An amendment to the Bill would be able to deal with what is seen as admissible as evidence in court; if there is clear and reliable evidence to suggest that the previous disclosure was false, not simply that a disclosure of rape had happened. We think that including that would be a major step forward for rape victims.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
The second question is about the Victims’ Commissioner. That is obviously a welcome step. Is there any other element where you think the Victims’ Commissioner should get more responsibilities? They have to report annually and will have to take into account. Should they have broader powers, maybe to look at family courts and give a viewpoint? You mentioned that earlier. Do you think the Bill goes far enough?
My third question is about sentencing hearings. There are obviously going to be differences between where someone who is sentenced for affray or a violent offence and where it is a sexual offence. Are there nuances with the victims? Do some victims not want to see the offender in the courtroom? Should that be a mitigating circumstance in all cases for them not to appear? For instance, you mentioned a case example of harassment. In that case, should we give more focus to the courts to say, “You should not actually be attending this court hearing”? That would be almost a reversal of this policy, so that we are putting the victim before the requirement, if that makes sense.
Andrea Simon: With the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, it is both things. It is certainly a communications issue. We do know of victims and survivors who realise only at the last minute that they are eligible, so they have run out of time, and it has been a desperate dash to get an application in. We should end that because it is not serving anybody. There is the point about extending it, but it is not an either/or; it is also about the communications, the length of time, and letting people know that this exists.
I was part of a sentencing review panel, and a lot of evidence came through about the complete confusion that victims find themselves in when it comes to trying to get information. There is not one source; there are many different places where information can be fed through. You are often trying to fight to find somebody who will be able to help you. It is very inconsistent and patchy currently. There is a lot of strength to the sentencing review’s call to review all the communication channels and look at how we can best streamline them and how they are most effective for victims and survivors.
There is also a wider public education piece about what is going on with sentencing. I would not say that most members of the public are that well informed, because where would they get that information? It is only once you are in the system that you start to realise how complicated it can be to get the information that you need. We have to marry that with being able to tailor the needs of individual victims. There is no homogeneous victim group. Different victims will want to know information, but the offer should be there, and we should empower victims as much as we possibly can within the process.
Very quickly, I definitely support the extension and expansion of Victims’ Commissioner’s powers. I would potentially question how the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to work on systemic issues with the current level of resourcing that is committed. There is not necessarily a proportionate increase in the resourcing for the commissioner to be able to take on individual cases and look at systemic issues as well. We need to be clear about managing expectations, and potentially about what the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role can deliver.
Suky Bhaker: I very much agree with Andrea on the sentencing. As mentioned, there is an education piece there. Victims are not aware, or are made aware far too late in comparison with offenders’ rights. There is merit to increasing the timeframe as well.
We welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers, particularly in relation to the victims code. Less than a third of victims are aware of their rights under the victims code. That is corroborated by service users at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is pivotal for that information —that education piece—to be there and for it to be monitored for greater accountability and transparency.
I think the provisions can go further. We have spoken a lot about family courts, which is absolutely right. We need to consider that part of the Bill, and, I would argue, civil courts. We see stalkers using civil courts as a legitimate means to continue stalking their victims through vexatious claims. Often, they have no recourse to justice when a criminal investigation is ongoing at the same time. We think that needs to be better explored in the Bill.
Farah Nazeer: On lenient sentencing, there is no silver bullet. It is probably threefold. First, it is awareness and education, as you rightly say. Secondly, it is time. Thirdly, it is support: support to understand what the process looks like, to go through it and to hold your nerve. It is all that emotional support that sits around it. There is a threefold set of interventions that needs to happen.
I would absolutely welcome the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role to look at family courts and what happens within that setting, but that will be possible only if the office is resourced to meet the requirements and the ambitions set out in the Bill. That comes back to the resourcing question.
On perpetrators being in court for sentencing, if you start off with a victim-centred approach, that is a good way to be led—what does the victim feel? There will invariably be crime types, such as the crime types that we work with involving women who have experienced male violence of some description—VAWG—where there should be some form of directive that alerts courts to the fact that they really do need to check in. They need to ask the questions. We know that, even where there is guidance, practice directions and training, it does not always manifest in the everyday practice of courts. I think a really important part is thinking about what monitoring there might be, as well as the robust mechanisms that you might be able to put in place to ensure that this actually happens and meets the ambitions, so that there is ultimately some form of accountability framework.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Q
The Chair
Very briefly, if you would, as we are running out of time.
Farah Nazeer: I think it will help. We work with loads of women who are in that setting, and when you are in that setting, you need more than one way to contact someone. It could be an email, a phone call or straight afterwards—there are lots of interventions. Again, these kinds of issues do not afford themselves a silver bullet, so having multiple interventions to ensure that the survivor knows is really important.
The Chair
Thank you very much to the witnesses for your time this afternoon; we are most grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Justice for Victims, and we have until 3 pm for this panel. We have Mr Glenn Youens online—can you hear us, Glenn? Would you like to start by introducing yourself?
Glenn Youens: My name is Glenn Youens. I am one of the members of Justice for Victims. My four-year-old daughter, Violet-Grace, was killed in a hit-and-run in 2017 by Aidan McAteer in a stolen car. Along with Paula and a few other people, we have set up this group to hopefully give a voice to victims and involve them in this kind of thing. We want to give an actual voice to victims to say how we feel that we have been treated by the justice system.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Paula?
Paula Hudgell: I am Paula Hudgell, and I am part of the group as well. I am the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell, who I am sure a few of you know. He was abused by his birth parents at 41 days old, and he was at death’s door. As a result of his absolutely horrific abuse he lost both his legs, along with other injuries.
Dr Mullan
Q
Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that.
There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience.
Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement.
Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could.
That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly.
Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: Yes, we absolutely agree. We feel that the victims should be asked about the sentencing hearings, but we also appreciate that in some cases—although you want to see the perpetrators and you want to be there to see them sentenced—some of the perpetrators really do not behave, and they can actually cause more harm to the victims and their families by being there. I know it says it is down to the judges, but the victims and their families really should be consulted on how they want to proceed.
Glenn Youens: I would say the same as Paula: it really should be down to the families. For judges, it is another case, another part of their job, but the families are the ones living that reality. If they want to see the perpetrators in court, they should be able to; if they do not want to, they should be able to put that forward. I do not think that anyone can make that decision apart from families. It is important that they are given the option. It should not just be what the judge thinks; there needs to be a conversation with them, letting them put their point across properly. Some people might want to see them; some people might not. It is really important that the families, the victims, are considered properly, and that it is not just, “This is what the judge thinks.” It needs to be a conversation with the victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: Yes. As long as it is what the victims themselves or their families actually want, then yes, I think they should be compelled to be there. Obviously, it is slightly different, but with our VPS in a parole hearing they refused to listen to it. I do not agree with that, because you cannot see how that person reacts. It should not be down to their rights; it should be down to a discussion with victims as to whether they want it. Yes, I agree with forcing people.
Glenn Youens: I think it is down to the families. In our case, Aidan McAteer and Dean Brennan asked if they could not come to court; they wanted to do it by video link. And the judge said, “No, you have to be there. You have to attend.” For us, that was what we wanted. At the end of the day, these criminals chose to do what they did; they chose to be there. Among the victims, nobody chose to be there. The victims should be looked after and made to feel that if that is what they want, then that is what we will do, because they are the ones who have been pushed into this.
A lot of people do not have experience in court and do not have experience of the criminal side of stuff; they have been dragged into it. The least the courts can do is to make them feel as comfortable as possible. If that means the criminal being there and acting up, shouting up, doing what they want—if they still want to see the criminal’s face when they receive proper justice, the criminal should be made to attend. Whether that they should be restrained or had time added on to their sentence, they should be made to do it. What the victims’ families feel should be done for them.
Dr Mullan
Q
Paula Hudgell: It is very difficult when you have been through a trial or a sentencing. Your emotions are everywhere. It is so draining—it just takes over your whole life.
A lot of the time, the information is not given that you can actually appeal a sentence. Twenty-eight days is not long enough. People are going through a bereavement. As one of our group pointed out, “You have 28 days to take a T-shirt back to the shop—28 days to make a decision over that!” You may not find out until the last minute. It is very, very difficult.
Also, a lot of the time you do not know the process, unless you are from a legal background. Sometimes you are not told and that information does not filter through. Yes, it should be a lot longer, because your emotions are all over the place when you are in that situation.
Glenn Youens: As Paula said, and as Katie said in our group—“Twenty-eight days? You get longer to decide if you like an item of clothing or not.” Becky asked the CPS about how we appealed the sentence, and we were actually advised on the day not to appeal it, because it was felt that if we did appeal it, the criminal could get less time in prison. That was our first experience with it.
After that, we were planning Violet’s funeral; we had to go from there and plan our daughter’s funeral, and then we had 28 days to try and appeal the sentence. Your head was not in the right place. We did not open post for about four or five months after that. We did not answer the phone to people, because we were trying to put our life back together. But then to realise that, as you say, you have 28 days to appeal it—it is not enough time for people like us and other victims. Their first thing is trying to put their lives back together again. Then, when you are strong enough to realise, “I can go through this court case—I can go through this again,” to be told, “It’s too late now.”—I just do not think that is acceptable for families.
Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to go to the sentencing of somebody who has killed your loved one, it is really hard to express how you feel in the next few days, weeks or months. I was off work for seven months before I returned to work—it was seven months before I felt like I could go back to any kind of normality. Yet you are only given 28 days to decide whether you want to go through that court case again, and also to decide whether that is worth doing when there is a chance that he might get a lesser sentence than the already insulting sentence he has been given.
That needs looking at. It needs to be done properly, and the families need to be consulted, because I am pretty confident that most families you will speak to will agree that 28 days is not long enough to do anything in that situation.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
Alex Brewer
Q
Paula Hudgell: That is a difficult one, because I do not really know about it—sorry.
Glenn Youens: I do not think that we know enough about that side of it, but I think anybody who has been affected by a crime is a victim.
The Chair
That was nice, short and pithy, if I may say so; I wish some of my colleagues were as succinct. There are no further questions, so thank you both very much indeed, Glenn and Paula. I know how difficult this must be for you, and I very much appreciate your giving your time today. What you have said will be very important in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Mark Brooks gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Mark Brooks: My name is Mark Brooks. I am chair of the trustees of the ManKind Initiative charity. We are a specialist by-and-for service for male victims of domestic abuse, and we work with colleagues across the sexual violence sector and related sectors.
Dr Mullan
Q
I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach?
Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.
Dr Mullan
Q
Mark Brooks: For it to act as a deterrent, we think it should apply in all cases. We want far-reaching consequences for anyone who commits those crimes, so we think it should be extended.
Dr Mullan
Q
Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.
Alex Davies-Jones
Q
In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?
Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.
Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.
Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.
Alex Brewer
Q
Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children.
On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.
Alex Brewer
Q
Mark Brooks: It is not so much in the Bill, and the Minister knows our position on this, but there continues to be an issue with how male victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and other crimes are seen by society and, importantly, within the justice system. We know that the present and the previous Victims’ Commissioners support the position that male victims of domestic abuse should not be classed as victims of violence against a woman or a girl. A son, as covered by the Victims and Courts Bill, has been characterised, classed and defined by successive Governments as a victim of violence against a girl, even though he is obviously a boy.
The same issue applies to male victims of domestic abuse. Successive Governments have officially classed them as being victims of violence against a woman. We are asking that “violence against women and girls” be changed to include male victims. When the Bill is enacted, any male victim covered by it should no longer be classed as a victim of violence against a woman or a girl. That has to change; it is quite Orwellian, aside from anything else, as it is clearly incorrect.
We therefore need to get more male victims recognised in their own right. They would then have more access, more understanding and better support to be able to come forward and benefit from the measures in the Bill. This is a wider political issue. Just to reiterate, we want to keep the violence against women and girls strategy and definition, but we want a parallel view for male victims.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Q
Mark Brooks: We believe it is right that a perpetrator, or somebody who has been sentenced, should be forced to be present at court, including at sentencing. It is important that victims not only see that justice is being done in terms of sentencing and the court experience, but feel that it is being done. Seeing the person being convicted in front of them, with their family and the wider community, is absolutely essential, so we support the measures on that in the Bill.
In terms of it being a spectacle, the bottom line is that we must act in the interest of the victim, the person who has had the crime committed against them. They must be the priority, so we are in favour of the measures put forward by the Government.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Q
Mark Brooks: I work in wider policy around men’s health and I have been helping the Government on the men’s health strategy call for evidence, which is out now. In terms of language, I often see literature in which men are not visually present, so it is important that men in all their shapes, sizes and guises are visible. Also, there needs to be more outreach, often targeting where men go, not where you think they should go. Leaving things in libraries and GP surgeries, for example, will not reach men. We need far better promotion online and through community groups, barbers and sports clubs—Facebook is also really important for men—basically reaching out to where men go.
There is a huge growth in community-based support charities for men, which have grown exponentially in the last five years—things like Men’s Sheds, Andy’s Man Club, Talk Club and so forth. Some of them are in the room next door, giving a presentation about the men’s health strategy, so use those. The justice system and the people within it can be smarter in reaching out to non-statutory organisations.
Jack Rankin
Q
Mark Brooks: Yes, in principle. I come back to my point about the importance of making sure victims feel that justice is being done, as well as seeing it being done.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Q
Mark Brooks: The issue is where you would draw the line. It depends on the violent offences, and against whom they are committed. I mentioned the wider work I have been doing on men’s health and the criminal justice system. You do not want a situation where men who have gone to prison and are going through a rehabilitation process for violent crimes, but not against their children, are not able to rebuild their relationship with their children. We have found that a lot of men in prison want to be present dads, even when they are in prison, which means they want to re-engage with their children when they come out of prison.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Mark Brooks: I think that should be considered if it is against their partner and they share a child. Certainly that should be up for consideration, but no wider than that. Again, we have to make sure that men or women coming out of prison, who have been convicted of these offences, have the opportunity to be rehabilitated. One of the big concerns is that people go into prison for crimes such as domestic abuse and do not receive the support they should so that they can have a safe relationship with others when they come out, if that can happen. We need more work on perpetrators, and that is certainly a point worth considering.
The Chair
Mr Brooks, thank you very much indeed for taking the time to be with us this afternoon.
We are coming to the penultimate panel, and it is quite likely that the final panel will be punctuated. If so, since the Minister will be on the Front Bench for the business to come in the Chamber, I do not propose to call her back—I hope that is satisfactory. Hopefully we will get everybody in and the two remaining panels will not be interrupted, but I am expecting a vote shortly before the hour, so it is quite possible that they will be.
Examination of Witnesses
Kim Thornden-Edwards and Chris Jennings gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Kim Thornden-Edwards: My name is Kim Thornden-Edwards, and I am the chief probation officer in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
Chris Jennings: My name is Chris Jennings. I am an area executive director in HMPPS, with operational responsibility for prisons and probation in the south-west and what we call south-central. I also have a national victims policy team sitting under my command—that is really why I am here today, rather than the first part of my job.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: I have operational responsibility for 15 prisons, so I have some expertise, but I have never been a prison officer and do not have personal experience in that way.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: Yes, I would say we are skilled in that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: With the appropriate training and resources, I guess it would be possible.
Dr Mullan
Q
Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Q
Chris Jennings: We have staffing challenges in different ways in the Probation Service. Victim liaison officers are a particular group of staff that we recruit through a particular route. It is not the same route that we recruit probation officers through, and that is not the same route that we recruit unpaid work supervisors through. There are different role types within the service, and some of them are under more pressure than others. VLOs are not one of the areas where we are under most pressure, despite your description being absolutely true for some of the other areas.
There is also a geographic spread of where we are under pressure operationally; it is not the same everywhere. Some places are very well resourced and some are less well resourced. Those combinations lead us to a place where we do not think that resourcing should be the thing that holds us back from making a success of this. Of course, we have to pay close attention to it, because if the numbers go up more than we anticipate, we will need to make sure that we resource that adequately, but we are not hugely worried about it at the moment.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: The victim contact scheme is a discrete service, so we do not transfer staff across or expect people to do a multiple brief on it. It is a discrete service that we recruit to separately. Our recruitment of victim liaison officers has been on an upward trajectory over the last 10 months. The banding and grading, and therefore the salary, of victim contact officers also increased last year, so we anticipate that there will be further uptake in terms of recruitment. Across the Probation Service, most grades saw an increase over the last year, so we are generally on an upward trajectory for staffing. You may be familiar with the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that we will look to recruit a further 1,300 probation officer staff during this financial year. We anticipate continued significant growth of probation areas over the period of the spending review.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Chris Jennings: Yes. We are very used to dealing with the impacts of all those sorts of crimes in our world. It is the bread and butter of what we do. We will need to make sure that we give people the appropriate skills and training and do not throw them in at the deep end, but we are well used to doing that and we have the skills to do it. I have no reason not to be confident that we can make that work.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: We are also building on a service that is delivering good outcomes currently. In 2024, so very recently, His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, which provides our external scrutiny, found our statutory victim work to be outstanding for three of our regional inspections. We also had an inspection in 2023 of general victim services that found the services to be good. We are building on a good level of service delivery currently and victim liaison officers who are doing a good job. We are very concerned to ensure that their training remains relevant and pertinent to the specific issues that the victims who use our service are often involved in. There is dedicated training for domestic abuse.
We are also concerned, as the service, and particularly the helpline, expands and extends, to ensure that those who deliver the helpline will be involved in the most appropriate training, including domestic abuse and a trauma-informed approach. We will build in those training requirements at every juncture and for every member of staff involved in the scheme.
Tristan Osborne
Q
My second question is about restriction zones. We are pivoting away from exclusion zones to restriction zones, which is giving more focus to victims. Do you think the monitoring is in place for the Probation Service to be able to manage that change of approach, to ensure that there is a pivot away from the rights of the perpetrator to the rights of the victim?
Chris Jennings: Maybe I should pick up the first question. Depending on how a perpetrator appears before the court—whether they are beaming in from prison via video link or attending in person at court—there are different responsibilities in terms of who undertakes the potential restraint of the prisoner. If we deliver somebody to court, court officers take custody of that person and look after them in the dock. I am less able to speak about the skills of the court staff, because it was many years ago that I worked in the court service and I do not feel up to date.
If you are in prison and beaming in via video link, I guess—to an earlier question—it would be possible to train prison officers who are already skilled in some forms of control and restraint in a different way. My instinct would be, although I am not perfectly qualified, that for court staff that would be quite a leap.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: On your second question about a switch from exclusion zones to restriction zones, we are currently working through the finer detail of that policy change and its impact and implications. We will take stock and determine what policy change is required to enable staff to make the change, what practice and operational guidance and instructions will be required, and what training element will be required, should that be necessary. We will be working through all those potential implications to this change. Our staff are very well versed in exclusion zones and understanding those. I am confident that they will be able to understand the change in emphasis and what some of the implications are, and will be able to bring the necessary degree of professionalism, integrity and foresight to those arrangements.
Chris Jennings: Our relationship with the police will be key, too. We work closely in partnership with them on these sorts of things. That will be required during this change, too, to maintain those close operational relationships on the frontline.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
I want to come back to the point about compelling attendance at sentencing hearings. The Government’s Bill states that a relevant officer may,
“for the purpose of delivering the offender to the courtroom, use reasonable force, if necessary and proportionate.”
That is in relation to the existing use of force policy framework and the relevant Prison Service orders that apply to it. Do you agree that, when you look at the use of force framework, the words “necessary”, “proportionate” and “reasonable” relate to the whole spectrum of use of force, from the very lowest level, such as a guiding hold, right to the top level, and therefore the word “restraint” in the amendment tabled by the official Opposition does not detail what existing restraint would be used that is not already covered in the current policy framework?
My second question is this. I have never heard or seen gagging in any Prison Service policy, so from your operational experience, what implement would you suggest would be used for gagging and how would it be applied?
Chris Jennings: In reverse order, that is well beyond my area of expertise, because, as you rightly identify, that is not something that is in use in the service at the moment. Perhaps, in some unfortunate hostage situations, other prisoners may deploy such techniques, but not our staff, so I am not qualified to offer a perspective on what sort of equipment may or may not be appropriate.
On your first question, again, I am not an expert on use of force—I have not done the jobs you have done to get to the role I am in now—but I think that the description you gave of the policy is accurate. That way that you described it is what it means at every level; that would be my interpretation.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Q
Chris Jennings: I was the director in Wales for four and a half years, until 18 months ago, so I know working in Wales quite well. It is one of the better staffed areas, despite colleagues’ perspectives to you being right; there will be some carrying heavy workloads, I am sure. The distinction is between the probation officer caseload and what we ask VLOs to do. They are not the same thing. As Kim described, they are ringfenced activities. There is obviously communication between the two sets of staff, but they are not the same thing.
The overall probation caseload in some areas is definitely something that we are more worried about, but not as it pertains particularly to the VLOs. That is why we are perhaps reasonably upbeat about it. It is not one of the areas that we are under most pressure on, so I think we will be able to absorb it. There will be some national things, such as the helpline and ensuring that we resource that on a national basis. My national team have a key role to play in providing the training, support and guidance to VLOs out there.
Switching my hat back to my other day job, operationally, between me and my regional probation directors, we will have to ensure that we are paying full attention to implementing the Bill well, given how crucial it is to confidence in the justice system and making sure that we are providing the support that victims deserve. I do feel confident about our ability to do that.
Kim Thornden-Edwards: I certainly endorse that. Again, it is about the discrete element of the victim liaison officers. In terms of general staffing, I absolutely acknowledge what you are saying. The Lord Chancellor has acknowledged that there are capacity issues in the Probation Service, and workloads are currently too high. We have a comprehensive plan to mitigate that. Part of that is around growth. The Lord Chancellor announced £700 million of additional funds for probation by the end of the spending review period, so we will be able to look at growth with that funding.
We are also looking at ways to improve our processes and use of technology. Those are things that our probation staff on the frontline are saying to us are real hindrances to their ability to do the best job every day, which they absolutely want to do. They are time hoovers, too. The time that staff want to spend with people on probation and on licence, to protect the public and effect the changes that we need to see in their behaviour, is being eaten up by bad tech and poor processes. Alongside growth, there is absolutely a commitment to make those changes as we go forward.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. What you have said will be very useful in the Committee’s deliberations.
Examination of Witness
Alex Davies-Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself?
Alex Davies-Jones: I am Alex Davies-Jones, the MP for Pontypridd and the Minister with responsibility for victims and tackling violence against women and girls in the Ministry of Justice.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it?
Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration.
With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement.
I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.
Dr Mullan
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.
Dr Mullan
Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to clarify the Government’s thinking behind why we have kept this measure quite tight. It is important to say at the outset that there are other mechanisms to remove parental responsibility from offenders and perpetrators, and those mechanisms will still remain, such as the family court process.
What this measure does is quite novel: it removes parental responsibility at the point of conviction in the criminal courts, and it is an untested measure in doing so. It is important that we can see the impact this will have on victims, survivors and, first and foremost, children. It is important to stress that perpetrators will be able to appeal this through the family courts, and they will be able to apply for legal aid through the system as a result of this.
Therefore we feel that, at this point in time, it is important to keep such a novel approach quite tight. That is why we have chosen to restrict it to offenders who have been committed of any sexual offence against their own children and been sentenced to four years or more. We are not saying that we would not be open to expanding it in the future, but, as I think we heard quite clearly throughout the evidence sessions today, we must consider the impact this could have on the family court system as it currently stands.
The family court is under immense pressure. Sadly, another element of the criminal justice system that we inherited from the previous Government is the immense pressure from the backlog. You also heard about the issues that currently stand within the family court, and how many victims and survivors, particularly victims of domestic abuse, feel that it retraumatises them. I would not want to put any other victims through that process, and that is why the Government have chosen to target this measure, as a starting point, at that specific cohort. We feel it is a novel approach; it has never been done this way, and so we have chosen to be quite specific with it.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: There is a mechanism available to remove parental responsibility via that route, currently through the family courts. I am aware that that would require the other parent to take the perpetrating parent to the family court, and I have been made aware that it is not easy to do that, but that route is available. That is why we have chosen to keep this measure quite tight at present.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Because there are sadly quite a lot of sex offenders in this country, so extending the measure to any sex offender could bring waves of people into scope. We are not saying that that is not appropriate, but this is a novel approach and those perpetrators can have parental responsibility stripped through other means. I am very cautious about putting extra strain on the family courts, given the issues that they face. At present, we want to keep it to any sexual offence where the perpetrator gets four years or more in prison and it is against their own child, in order to keep that child safe from the perpetrator.
Caroline Voaden
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to come back to you to clarify that point, but I am happy to do so.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Thank you for that question. We have built on the previous Government’s measure to compel perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings. The previous measure was merely an extra two years on their prison sentence. As you have stated, and as victims have told us, for someone serving a whole-life order or life imprisonment, an extra two years on their sentence is not really an incentive to come to court.
We listened to the Pratt-Korbels and other families who have been through this horrific situation, and have done something quite novel. For the first time ever in this Bill, judges will be given powers to issue sanctions on perpetrators once they are in prison. We have not listed those sanctions on the face of the Bill because we do not want to be prescriptive. A whole range of measures is available, and we feel that listing them in the Bill would be too restrictive. By not doing so, we enable judges to use every tool at their disposal to issue sanctions in prison. They include, for example, limitations on access to a gym, to work programmes or to television. We are looking at visit restrictions, and salaries can be taken away if the offender is in a work programme. All that can be looked at in the round; those are all available to a judge as part of a sanctions programme.
We want perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings in person. You heard how important it is to victims and survivors to have them there in person to hear justice being done. We have looked at all the practical ways in which that can be done. We have worked with stakeholders, including the judiciary and prison governors, and we felt that this is the best course of action.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: Yes.
Bradley Thomas
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: You have outlined some of the issues that we have come up against in trying to make this measure workable, and that is why we have chosen to keep it quite specific in the Bill. I am not aware of the details of your constituent’s case, which sounds horrific; my thoughts are with her and the family. From what you have outlined, although the perpetrator has committed a heinous act against the mother, we are unaware of any acts committed against the children. It is about where you draw the line. How many perpetrators do you bring in scope of the measure? The route is available to your constituent to remove parental responsibility via the family courts. That route is available to her now, and I would always suggest that someone takes that route if they feel that it is the most appropriate course of action.
In the Bill, we are talking about parental responsibility being removed on a criminal conviction in court for an offence against the child, to keep the children safe. How broad do we make this measure, especially when it is untested and novel? We need to keep it quite specific, because we do not know what impact it will have on the family court system, how many perpetrators will appeal or the impact that that will have. The measure is therefore quite specific, and we feel that that is the appropriate course of action for now.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: To repeat my answer to Anneliese, the measures in the previous Government’s Bill, which fell before the general election, would have only added an extra two years on to the sentence of a perpetrator who failed to attend their sentencing hearing. The measure in this Bill goes significantly further. For the first time ever, judges will have the ability to sanction perpetrators in prison who fail to attend their sentencing hearing or are disruptive while in the courtroom. If the perpetrator does attend the sentencing hearing, but proceeds to disrupt it, the judge will be able to apply the sanctions. That is a measure in the Bill.
We are also providing prison officers with the ability to conduct reasonable force to get the perpetrator to attend the sentencing hearing. That is a measure in the Bill. Our Bill is markedly different, and that is because we have listened to victims and survivors about what they wanted and felt was appropriate to ensure that there was culpability and accountability.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful for that question. It is important to note that the criminal justice system is a system: it only works with every element of it slotting together. Therefore, the Bill does work in tandem with the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently before the House. There are a number of measures in that Bill around respect orders, giving police the power to seize off-road bikes without a warrant, and new powers in this Bill, working in conjunction with the Victims’ Commissioner, on a duty to collaborate involving different agencies, for example. All these fit together, and it is important that we look at this holistically.
There were a number of measures that were raised today, and a number of witnesses raised measures that are not in this Bill. I stress to Committee members that a lot of work is happening behind the scenes. I am happy to discuss the work that is being done on measures raised as not necessarily being in this Bill, because we have got a number of reviews taking place in the MOJ at the moment. You will all be aware of the recently published sentencing review, and there is a courts review being conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. All this needs to fit together holistically; it cannot be done in isolation. There will future legislation coming forward as well, so it is important not to pin everything down in every Bill just because we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to fit and be rightly considered and reviewed before we do so.
Alex Brewer
Q
Alex Davies-Jones: I suppose that could be considered, but the family court is currently the route that is available to someone to appeal. By preventing an appeal, you would get into a whole swathe of issues, and you could be in a very difficult situation if there was no route to appeal. We are aware of the issues in the family court and, as I have just said, it is important to not take this Bill in isolation. A lot of work is being done in the Ministry of Justice to look at how we improve the family court, not least through the work we are doing on pathfinder courts and ensuring that the voice of the child is centred in proceedings considering children. It is very difficult, but I do not envisage any mechanism where you could introduce a measure such as this and not have the right to appeal. Given that the family court is the most appropriate route for that, and where they hear those proceedings, it would not be practical to create a different mechanism. I do not see it fitting and being realistic in any other way.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Minister; brilliantly timed. That brings us to the end of today’s session with seconds to spare, I think.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we commence proceedings, I mention that I am content for colleagues—Members and officials —to remove their jackets if they so wish. I am conscious that it is very warm. [Interruption.] I am thankful that Mr Betts is pleased about that.
Clause 81
Reviewable decisions etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 66, 67, 68, 71, 69 and 72.
Schedule 10.
Clauses 82 and 83 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. Broadly, this group deals with the first three clauses of part 9, on reviews and appeals. A key safeguard on any regulatory regime is the opportunity to challenge the regulator’s decisions. As we will discuss in subsequent groups, decisions can be appealed to the specialist Competition Appeal Tribunal, but, as a preliminary step, clauses 81 to 83 create a statutory right for anyone “directly affected” by many of the regulator’s decisions to request that the regulator conduct an internal review.
Internal reviews will involve fresh decision makers reviewing a decision. They will provide a quicker and lower-cost option than immediately pursuing litigation. That should also streamline the overall appeals process, help ensure that litigation is a remedy of last resort, and hopefully minimise burdens on all parties and on the legal system.
Schedule 10 is a list covering the majority of significant regulatory decisions the regulator will make that directly affected persons are likely to appeal. These are the decisions that can be subject to internal review and appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. More operational decisions have not been captured in the list of reviewable decisions, nor have “positive” decisions, where the likelihood of appeal is negligible, such as the decision to grant a club a licence. The right to apply for judicial review still applies in the usual way to decisions not captured in schedule 10.
Clause 82 sets out that, after the regulator makes a reviewable decision, a directly affected person can request that the regulator conduct an internal review. The clause outlines the procedure for internal reviews and empowers the regulator to refuse a review request in certain circumstances, including if the regulator considers that the request is vexatious. This should ensure that internal reviews are not used as a mechanism for clubs to frustrate and slow down the regulatory process. The clause guarantees that any individual who was involved in making the original decision will not be involved in conducting the internal review. That will ensure a fair review by fresh decision makers.
Lastly, clause 83 outlines further procedure around internal reviews. The outcome of an internal review can be to uphold, vary or entirely cancel the original decision. This means that the applicable reviewer can correct a flawed or unfair decision. The regulator will have a statutory deadline of 14 days to conduct the internal review, with a maximum possible extension of a further 14 days in special cases. This should strike the fine balance between delivering a streamlined process and giving the regulator sufficient time to conduct a proper re-evaluation of the evidence. In the interests of an open and transparent appeals process, the regulator will be required to publish the outcome of any internal review.
I turn to a series of Government amendments related to appeals. Government amendment 66 will add the regulator’s decision to trigger the backstop process to the Bill’s list of reviewable decisions. This will add a statutory route of appeal for the decision. Currently, the Bill makes only a decision not to trigger the backstop a reviewable decision. Making either decision at this vital stage reviewable will strengthen the regulator’s accountability by providing competition organisers with statutory avenues to appeal.
Government amendments 67, 68 and 71 will make the board, not the expert panel, the applicable reviewer of the three distribution decisions: to trigger the backstop, to make a distribution order and to revoke a distribution order. The regulator’s board will be the regulator’s most senior decision makers and so will be best placed to make and review these momentous decisions.
Government amendments 69 and 72 will remove the statutory route of appeal for three minor procedural decisions—the decisions to conduct an investigation under clause 68, to ask questions as part of an investigation, and to not accept a commitment in lieu of an investigation. This will reduce unnecessary opportunities to hamper the regulator by appealing interim procedural steps of an investigation. It would be inappropriate to allow a club to appeal the rejection of a commitment in lieu of an investigation, as this should be entirely at the regulator’s discretion as the investigating authority.
I reassure the Committee that these changes will not limit access to justice. Affected parties will still be able to appeal the final decision—that is, the outcome of any investigation—to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The amendments simply remove the ability to challenge and frustrate the regulator at every step of an investigation. I commend the clauses, schedule and Government amendments to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I will keep my comments brief, which the Committee and you will probably be pleased to hear. I have listened carefully to what the Minister outlined, and the natural questions that arose about the amendments and clauses relate to how she imagines perceived biases will be avoided from boards and the panels, given that the expertise required to review such decisions will most certainly mean that most people involved in the process will be from the football industry.
How will the regulator seek to avoid any perception of biases, so we can ensure that what looks like a stage 1 complaints process—it is easiest to compare this with a council—has the relevant transparency and process involved to avoid going to stage 2, which would be the Competition Appeal Tribunal? Secondly, can the Minister explain why Government amendment 72 removes the decision to exercise the power to ask questions in an interview from the list of reviewable decisions? Why have the Government made that decision?
Stephanie Peacock
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the regulatory principles, in terms of the individuals involved—whether that is the board or the expert panel—and schedule 10, which lists the major significant regulatory decisions. If we look again at the regulatory principles, we see that there is a requirement to be proportionate and to act in a fair way. I will write to him about his second question, on amendment 72, but I think that this refers to the three minor amendments we are making so that the system cannot be frustrated at each step of the way. But I will clarify that and write to him, in the interests of accuracy.
Mr French
I am happy to receive a response in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Reviews
Amendments made: 66, in schedule 10, page 120, line 17, column 1, leave out “not to trigger” and insert
“to trigger, or not to trigger,”.
This amendment includes a decision to trigger the resolution process in the list of reviewable decisions set out in Schedule 10.
Amendment 67, in schedule 10, page 120, line 17, column 2, leave out
“a committee of the Expert Panel”
and insert “the Board”.
This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to trigger the resolution process is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel.
Amendment 68, in schedule 10, page 120, line 19, column 2, leave out
“a committee of the Expert Panel”
and insert “the Board”.
This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to make a distribution order under NC4 is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel.
Amendment 70, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 21 and 22.
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4.
Amendment 71, in schedule 10, page 120, line 23, column 2, leave out
“a committee of the Expert Panel”
and insert “the Board”.
This amendment provides that the applicable reviewer for a decision to revoke a distribution order under clause 63 is the Board rather than a committee of the Expert Panel.
Amendment 69, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 27 to 30.
This amendment removes a decision to conduct an investigation under clause 68 and not to accept a commitment in lieu under clause 70 from the list of reviewable decisions in Schedule 10.
Amendment 72, in schedule 10, page 120, leave out lines 35 and 36.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment removes a decision to exercise the power to ask questions under paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 from the list of reviewable decisions in Schedule 10.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The clauses relate to the appeals of the regulator’s decisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. An appeals process should provide the appropriate opportunity to challenge that a regulator is acting fairly and within its statutory remit. It should also be a focused and efficient process that does not excessively delay the final resolution of decisions or hinder the regulator in achieving its objectives. Finally, while providing effective assurance of the regulator’s decision-making process and judgment, the appeals system should not unduly undermine the expert independent regulator. We believe that the appeals process, and the standard of appeals set out in the clauses, effectively balance those different considerations.
Clause 84 sets out when appeals can be made, who can bring an appeal and how they are sequenced with internal reviews. Clause 85 sets out the standard of appeal that is to be applied by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on appeal of different types of decision. The majority of decisions will be appealable on judicial review grounds, having been first internally reviewed. That will provide a streamlined process for the majority of appeals.
The regulator reviews internally to ensure that its decision is robust, and the reviewed decision can then be scrutinised by the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In judicial review appeals, the Competition Appeal Tribunal will also be able to quash flawed decisions, but not substitute the regulator’s decision for its own. That will ensure appropriate deference is given to the regulator as the expert body that is best placed to make decisions of technical judgment in the football market.
However, there are some particularly significant enforcement decisions that the regulator can take under the Bill. We expect these actions to be rare, as they are for extreme and serious circumstances only. But, if taken by the regulator, these punitive actions could have a significant impact on a person’s rights. That is why, for the six decisions, we believe that a merits appeal is more appropriate, which means that the Competition Appeal Tribunal can substitute its decisions over the regulator’s. Finally, as is standard, clause 84 also establishes an onward route of appeal of the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decisions to the Court of Appeal.
In summary, we think that the standard of appeal, and the wider appeals process set out in the Bill, strikes the correct balance between offering appropriate scrutiny of regulatory decisions and not allowing those decisions to be constantly challenged and undermined. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Mr French
This part of the Bill is important. We have argued consistently throughout this Committee that we believe that the right of appeal will be fundamental to the clubs in the context of this Bill. But we do have concerns, as the official Opposition, that football clubs will increasingly see themselves in legal disputes rather than focusing on matters on and off the pitch.
The natural question regarding this process is really about how the Minister will help to ensure that there is a fair playing field in terms of the financial costs of going to an appeal. How will those smaller clubs have the same rights and access to such appeals when they clearly will not have the same financial means as some of the Premier League clubs?
Stephanie Peacock
My officials engaged with legal experts and senior members of tribunals while developing the Bill. That is why we have set out the Competition Appeal Tribunal process, and why we believe that it will be proportionate and appropriate for all levels of the pyramid.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Disclosure of information by the IFR
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
This group of clauses relates to the disclosure of information both to and from the regulator. Clause 86 will enable the regulator to share relevant information with bodies within the industry and regulators that are dealing with similar and relevant issues. As well as allowing those bodies to benefit from the regulator’s knowledge and information, that should encourage those bodies to reciprocate by sharing relevant information they hold with the regulator. These two-way sharing relationships should help to establish an effective network of communication that strengthens the efficiency of regulation in the industry and across the economy.
Clause 87 concerns the disclosure of information to the regulator, for example by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to enable other public authorities to share information with the regulator, if they do not already have the ability to do so. That will help to future-proof the regulator’s regime and ensure that it can obtain information from all the relevant bodies so that it can effectively deliver its functions.
Clause 88 sets out some restrictions and protections on the processing and disclosure of information by and to the regulator. That includes ensuring that a disclosure is in line with data protection legislation and does not prejudice the prevention, investigation or prosecution of a crime. It also prevents the disclosure of certain information, received from the National Crime Agency or HMRC, without their consent. This is to give those bodies confidence that sensitive information can be shared safely. The clause also permits the regulator to exclude information from disclosure that might significantly harm the legitimate personal or business interests of the person to whom the information relates. These are all important safeguards around the treatment of potentially sensitive information.
Finally, clause 89 creates criminal offences and penalties related to the safeguards for HMRC information set out in the previous clause. The penalties for these offences are commensurate with other regulatory regimes and are a proportionate but robust deterrent against the unlawful disclosure of information. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 87 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The Bill provides a clear framework of powers and duties for the regulator to follow. In places, that is a detailed and prescriptive framework to direct and constrain the regulator’s regime more closely, but in other places there is greater room for the regulator to exercise discretion. That approach reflects regulatory best practice, which is to give the expert, independent and better informed regulator the flexibility to adapt regulations to the circumstances of different persons and to changing circumstances over time. Such flexibility will allow the regulator to be light touch where possible but intervene more strongly where necessary.
The ability for the regulator to make rules facilitates that approach. Rules will allow the regulator to fill in the technical and operational details of its regime within the framework afforded to it by this Bill. It could amend, replace or revoke those rules in future to adapt to developments in the market. The clause sets out some procedural safeguards around the making of rules and what these rules may do, including that the regulator must consult specified competition organisers and anyone else it considers appropriate before making, amending or replacing any rules. As outlined previously, this consultation is an important part of the participative approach that the regulator should take to make sure its regime works for the industry.
Mr French
Without wishing to sound like a broken record, the Opposition have raised concerns about scope creep for the regulator down the line, and how that may lead to unintended consequences. The obvious question to the Minister is: what consultation will take place with Members of this House so that we can scrutinise any rule changes and be confident that the regulator has not gone beyond the scope of the powers that we deem necessary at this point?
Stephanie Peacock
I make two points in response to that. Of course, there is the provision in the Bill—I believe we will come on to this, but we may have already covered it—for a five-year review. On this clause, the regulator must consult specified competition organisers and anyone else it considers appropriate before making, amending or replacing any rules. This is about future-proofing, and certainly not about scope creep.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
Regulations
Mr French
Clause 91 provides the procedural backbone to the regulatory powers contained in the Bill. It sets out how the Secretary of State—whoever that may be, should this Bill become law—may make regulations under this legislation, including who may exercise discretion under them, and the form of parliamentary oversight that will apply. In short, this clause tells us how much power the Executive has in implementing the detail of the Bill, and how much say Parliament retains once the Bill becomes law.
The clause may be tucked away in the final third of the Bill, but its importance should not be understated. It governs not only the process of regulation, but the boundaries of ministerial authority. In some areas, we believe those boundaries are drawn too widely. That is why I have tabled amendment 127, which would remove the Secretary of State’s power under clause 56(2)(b) to specify, by regulation, other sources of relevant revenue that could be brought into scope of the resolution process.
Let me start by talking about clause 91. Subsection (1) allows regulations to confer discretion on a person and to vary by purpose, or to make incidental and consequential provisions. That is common enough in legislation, but it is worth nothing that that includes financial discretion, which has material implications for how the football regulator functions.
Subsection (2) confirms that all regulations must be made by statutory instrument. Again, that is standard practice. Subsection (3) provides a list of which regulations must be made under the affirmative procedure, and subsection (4) confirms that all other regulations fall under the negative procedure.
Subsection (5) removes the hybrid procedure, even if a regulation might otherwise qualify as hybrid, effectively limiting Parliament’s ability to challenge or delay regulations in which private or commercial interests are disproportionately affected. That all gives the Secretary of State wide scope to make rules that affect both her own regulator and the football industry, with only partial scrutiny by Parliament.
Clause 56 is where this becomes far more than procedural. Under clause 56(2)(b), the Secretary of State is empowered to expand, by regulation, what qualifies as relevant revenue for the purpose of regulatory intervention. Put plainly, this is a power to change what money is up for grabs.
That is a significant power. It means that the Secretary of State can decide what kinds of revenue are subject to redistribution disputes between leagues and competitions. Today, that might mean central broadcasting income, but tomorrow it could include gate receipts, sponsorship revenue, commercial arrangements specific to certain clubs or competitions, or even transfer proceeds or merchandising royalties. In theory, it could give a future Secretary of State the ability to bring any revenue stream into scope, and thereby invite the regulator to oversee, or even compel, its redistribution. This is a constitutional concern, not just a technical one. Will the Minister please confirm whether there are any limits—statutory or political—on what the Secretary of State could define as a source of “relevant revenue” under clause 56(2)(b)? If not, does she accept that that gives the Government open-ended authority to intervene in private commercial arrangements within football?
My amendment would remove this regulation-making power from the Bill. It would ensure that the scope of financial disputes eligible for regulatory resolution is fixed in primary legislation, not adjustable by ministerial diktat. We believe that is the right balance; it allows Parliament to define the guardrails and prevents future mission creep, whereby politically contentious revenue streams are dragged into disputes between the Premier League and the EFL, or any other competitions.
This is not just about the risk of interference; it is about certainty, predictability and trust in the regulatory model. We have already made clear our concerns about how English football will run into issues with UEFA and FIFA regarding their statutes. I will not repeat that again now, but we believe that, by granting the Secretary of State the power to redefine revenue categories by regulation—outside of parliamentary debate—clause 56(2)(b), as enabled by clause 91, risks violating those principles.
Such interference has one clear sanction:
“the ultimate sanction…would be excluding the federation from Uefa and teams from competition.”
As we have already discussed, that is not a risk that should be taken lightly. If football governance is to remain independent, and if the regulator is to operate with a clear mandate, the definition of revenue categories must not be subject to political discretion; it must be set by Parliament in primary legislation, not by the stroke of a ministerial pen. That is especially true when the very mechanism in question, the resolution process, is designed to resolve disputes about money. What qualifies as “relevant revenue” goes to the heart of the matter. It is not ancillary; it is foundational.
Clause 91 may appear to be about procedures, but it is in fact about power. It determines how broad the reach of the Secretary of State will be in defining, influencing and intervening in the financial affairs of English football. In particular, through the mechanism created by clause 56(2)(b), it allows new revenue streams to be brought into the scope of the Government-backed intervention without proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is not what was promised when this Bill was introduced. We were told by the Government and this Minister that their regulator would be a light-touch and targeted regulator—one designed to uphold financial sustainability and protect supporters, not one that could be weaponised by future Ministers to remake the game’s financial settlement from above.
By tabling amendment 127, we are saying that revenue boundaries must be set in statute, not in statutory instruments, that Parliament, not the Secretary of State, should decide where the line is drawn, and that the regulator should focus on its core remit and not be dragged into every financial dispute, with a “revenue” label slapped on by regulation.
Stephanie Peacock
I believe that amendment 127 is consequential on the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup’s amendment 124 regarding our changes to the Bill to include parachute payments, which we debated last week—although I think he gave a slightly more wide-ranging speech just now. Amendment 124 would have prevented parachute payments from being considered under the backstop, and it would have prevented the Secretary of State from amending the revenue in scope of the backstop in future. I will state here what I stated last week, and what has been my consistent position, even in opposition: for the regulator to make an informed decision regarding the financial state of football, it must consider all relevant factors, and that includes parachute payments.
As drafted, the “relevant revenue” in scope of the backstop expressly includes broadcast revenue, because that is the predominant source of revenue and distributions for the relevant leagues. However, there is no guarantee that that will always remain the case. As I covered in last week’s debate, the financial landscape of football is ever-changing. No one could have predicted 30 years ago just how much television broadcasting of English football would grow, and who can predict where technology may take us in another 30 years? That is why clause 56 allows the Secretary of State to specify other kinds of revenue to be included as “relevant revenue”. This will simply future-proof the backstop mechanism.
However, as I outlined in the previous debate, there are still clear constraints and safeguards regarding this power. The Secretary State must consult with the regulator, the FA and the relevant leagues before using the power, and can use the power only when there has been
“a material change of circumstances”.
Any use of the power will be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
We cannot set something in stone and say, “That’s how it’s going to be forever.” Giving that bit of flexibility is right. I was talking to my friend Richard Caborn, who was a previous sports Minister, and he said to me that, when discussions first began about revenue within football, they were concentrated on the television rights to UK matches in the United Kingdom. It has since become apparent, of course, that it is the international rights that are the real driver of resources. That was not thought about when the first distribution was done.
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention; he has put an important point on the record, and it is always nice to be able to pay tribute to Richard Caborn, the former sports Minister and my former south Yorkshire colleague. He has done a lot of work in this area; indeed, I know that he has worked very closely with my hon. Friend.
This process is simply about future-proofing. Given that this Committee has already agreed to clause 56 and disagreed to the shadow Minister’s amendment 124, all that this amendment would achieve is to remove one of the safeguards, making regulations to update the definition of “relevant revenue” negative rather than affirmative. For those reasons, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 91 sets out the parameters and procedure around the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations under the various provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 91 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
Minor definitions etc
Mr Betts
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 75, line 17, after “functions” insert
“or give rise to the perception that said person’s functions have been prejudicially affected, including (but not limited to) a situation in which a person is—
(a) employed by or engaged as a consultant by any specified competition organiser or any group undertaking of a specified competition organiser;
(b) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from a specified competition organiser;
(c) connected with a group undertaking of an organisation within the scope of part (ii);
(d) connected in any capacity with an organisation which has, in the last year, received at least half of its income from any of the organisations listed in parts (ii) or (iii); or
(e) connected (as defined in section 252 of the Companies Act 2006) with an individual within the scope of parts (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of section 92(1).”
The amendment gives further detail to the definition of “conflict of interest” within this Bill.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner, hopefully for the last time—in this Committee, I mean. The amendment is simply trying to make the Bill a bit more specific about what “conflict of interest” might mean. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is not quite right in its drafting and wording. Nevertheless, it is at least worth putting on the record that this is an important issue. Maybe we can obtain some clarification about what “conflict of interest” means in practice.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this amendment. I acknowledge its intent to fortify the provisions in the Bill for dealing with conflicts of interest. We will cover “Minor Definitions” in detail when we discuss the next group of clauses, which includes clause 92 stand part. However, I will touch on “Minor Definitions” briefly when responding to this amendment.
As we discussed at length on day one of this Committee, when we debated conflicts of interest, it is essential that the regulator can deliver its regime free from undue influence and vested interests. The Bill already makes it clear that the regulator will be free from conflicts of interest and the Government amendments made in the other place strengthen those protections even further—indeed, beyond any doubt.
We believe that the existing definition of a conflict of interest is appropriate and will capture the correct issues. That definition is any interest that
“is likely to affect prejudicially that person’s discharge of functions”.
I reassure my hon. Friend that our definition is well precedented; for example, it can be found in the Pensions Act 2008 and the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.
Stephanie Peacock
The shadow Minister is making a well-rehearsed argument. As we have discussed previously, the newly appointed chair of the regulator has been fully endorsed by a cross-party Select Committee.
Returning to the amendment, we are confident that this definition and the conflict of interest protections in the Bill, supplemented by public law principles and non-legislative measures that are already in place, provide comprehensive safeguards to identify and manage conflicts of interest appropriately. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 93 stand part.
Schedule 11.
Stephanie Peacock
Clauses 92 and 93 and schedule 11 relate to definitions. Clause 92 defines various terms used throughout the Bill that are not already defined elsewhere. Clause 93 refers to schedule 11, which lists where in the Bill to find definitions or explanations of terms that apply to multiple provisions—for example, “competition organiser,” “football season” and “regulated club.”
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11
Index of defined terms
Amendment made: 73, in schedule 11, page 123, line 4, column 2, leave out “62(3)” and insert “(Distribution orders)(9)”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of NC4.
Schedule 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Pre-commencement consultation
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 94, page 76, line 14, leave out from “to” to end of line 15 and insert
“—
(a) a provision of this Act which requires the IFR to consult another person;
(b) the provision made by section 10(5)(a) and (b).”
This amendment includes the provision made by clause 10(5)(a) and (b) in clause 94.
Stephanie Peacock
These amendments relate to a simple administrative change to clause 94, the pre-commencement clause. Clause 94 will allow the shadow regulator to conduct consultation with relevant stakeholders ahead of Royal Assent. That clause was added to ensure that the shadow regulator would be able to begin consultation on its functions, and that, if deemed appropriate by the regulator post Royal Assent, that consultation could be relied on, ensuring no unnecessary delays to the set-up and commencement of the regulator.
The change simply ensures that the clause captures the slightly different wording in the state of the game clause about the regulator inviting suggestions on the report. By making this change, we reduce the operational risk of the regulator not reporting its state of the game report as quickly as possible post Royal Assent, and therefore being up and running as soon as necessary.
Amendment 55 agreed to.
Amendments made: 56, in clause 94, page 76, line 18, leave out “carried out consultation” and insert “did anything”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Amendment 57, in clause 94, page 76, line 20, leave out “consultation carried out” and insert “anything done”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Amendment 58, in clause 94, page 76, line 21, leave out
“consultation had been carried out”
and insert “thing had been done”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Amendment 59, in clause 94, page 76, line 23, leave out “consultation carried out” and insert “anything done”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 55.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 94 will allow the shadow regulator to conduct consultation with relevant stakeholders ahead of Royal Assent, and for that consultation to satisfy the requirements placed on the regulator in legislation post Royal Assent.
Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Offences by officers of clubs and bodies corporate
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 95 makes sure that if a club is found to have committed certain offences under the Bill, such as falsifying or destroying information, the individuals responsible can be held criminally liable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Review of Act
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
During Committee in the other place, Peers raised the importance of evaluating the impact, intended outcomes and success of the regulator. The Government absolutely agree that it is good practice for the impacts of regulation to be monitored and evaluated post-implementation. That is why we have added this clause, which will require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the operation of the Act and its impact on industry. That review must be completed no later than five years after the full commencement of the licensing regime.
Mr French
Given the concerns that His Majesty’s Official Opposition have raised throughout the passage of the Bill in this place and in the other House, we welcome the inclusion of the review of the Act. However, the clause mentions laying a copy of the report before Parliament. How does the Minister envisage Parliament being able to have its say on the benefits or non-benefits of the regulator at that point?
Stephanie Peacock
I think we discussed this earlier. It is up to individual Select Committees whether they wish to call the independent regulator before them. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the practicalities of laying the report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Payments into the Consolidated Fund
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 97 covers situations in which the regulator must return money to the Exchequer and requires the regulator to pay into the consolidated fund amounts received through the levy to recoup its set-up costs.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 98 relates to minor and consequential amendments to other primary legislation. Those amendments are to existing Acts and are necessary for the Bill to function as intended. For example, they add the regulator to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and enable the competition appeal tribunal to hear appeals of the regulator.
Stephanie Peacock
I believe so, but in the interest of accuracy I will double check and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 99
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 99 sets out the territorial extent and application of the Bill. The regulator’s scope is intended to be limited to the top five tiers of English men’s football. That is where the fan-led review identified significant harms and structural challenges that the market had failed to resolve. Five Welsh clubs compete in the English football pyramid, four of which—Cardiff City, Newport County, Swansea City and Wrexham—would be captured in the scope of the regulator. One more, Merthyr Town, which was recently promoted to the sixth tier, could be in scope in the future. To ensure that all clubs within the English football pyramid are captured and protected equally under the same regulatory regime, the legislation must extend to both England and Wales.
Mr French
I will not seek to rehash an earlier debate on the multi-club issue that the Opposition raised. However, I urge the Minister again to look closely at how that may work in the future. I fully appreciate her point about the Welsh clubs that compete in the English structure, but, as we highlighted in previous debates, a number of Scottish clubs now have multi-club ownership with English clubs and will be affected by this legislation directly or indirectly. If the Minister gave further thought to that and let me know, it would be appreciated.
Stephanie Peacock
I will make that commitment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The Bill provides for the majority of provisions to be brought into force by commencement regulations. Different provisions may be brought into force on different days, enabling the new regime to be brought into force in a structured and considered manner. The main exceptions to that are the provisions that establish the regulator and its governance structure. In addition, there are some basic initial functions that the regulator needs to stand up the regime, such as putting rules in place and preparing a state of the game report. These provisions will be brought into force on Royal Assent to enable the regulator to get on with the task of standing up the new regime without unnecessary delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Short title
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 101, page 80, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Stephanie Peacock
Clause 101 concerns the short title of the Bill. It makes certain that, once it has passed through Parliament, the Football Governance Bill will be cited as the Football Governance Act 2025. Finally, Government amendment 60 is technical and procedural; it removes the privilege amendment inserted on Third Reading in the Lords to clause 101. This was added in the other place to make it clear that they have not infringed on the financial privileges of this House.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 3
Proposal stage
“(1) This section applies where mediation under section 60 comes to an end by virtue of the occurrence of an event within section 60(6)(b), (c) or (d).
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after the occurrence of the event, the IFR must give notice to the two specified competition organisers.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) set out the question or questions for resolution,
(b) specify the qualifying football season or seasons to which that question relates or those questions relate,
(c) set out any findings in the IFR’s most recent state of the game report that the IFR considers relevant to that question or those questions,
(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to submit to the IFR and to each other a proposal as to how that question or those questions should be resolved,
(e) require any proposal to be accompanied by supporting evidence (including evidence as to how the proposal addresses the findings set out under paragraph (c)),
(f) specify the day on or before which proposals are to be submitted.
(4) A question for resolution may be set out in a notice under subsection (2) only if it is the question, or one of the questions, for resolution remaining unresolved when the mediation mentioned in subsection (1) came to an end.
(5) Where a notice under subsection (2) sets out a question for resolution that relates to relegation revenue (within the meaning given by section (Distribution orders)(9)), the notice must require the specified competition organisers to explain in a proposal how the proposal will promote the financial sustainability of clubs which operate teams relegated from a competition organised by the specified competition organiser distributing the relegation revenue.
(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on or before the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f), a specified competition organiser submits to the IFR a proposal which the IFR considers is not a qualifying proposal.
(7) The IFR may give both specified competition organisers a notice specifying a later day (falling not more than seven days after the end of the day specified by virtue of subsection (3)(f)) on or before which proposals are to be submitted.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after—
(a) the initial proposal deadline, or
(b) (if earlier) the day on which the IFR considers that both specified competition organisers have submitted qualifying proposals,
the IFR must give a notice under subsection (9) to the two specified competition organisers.
(9) A notice under this subsection must—
(a) state which of the two specified competition organisers (if any) has submitted a qualifying proposal before the initial proposal deadline,
(b) invite each such specified competition organiser to—
(i) confirm their proposal, or
(ii) make any permitted modifications to their proposal,
and submit the confirmed or modified proposal to the IFR and the other specified competition organiser, and
(c) specify the day on or before which the confirmed or modified proposal is to be submitted.
(10) The IFR may specify in a notice under subsection (2) or (9) the form and manner in which proposals and supporting evidence must be submitted.
(11) In this section—
(a) ‘the initial proposal deadline’ means—
(i) the day referred to in subsection (3)(f), or
(ii) where the IFR gives a notice under subsection (7), the day specified in the notice;
(b) a ‘qualifying proposal’ means a proposal which—
(i) explains how the question or questions for resolution should be resolved, and
(ii) complies with the requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3)(e) and (5) (if applicable);
(c) a modification to a proposal is ‘permitted’ unless it results in the proposal no longer being a qualifying proposal.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause substitutes clause 61 with a new clause providing for a revised procedure for the proposal stage of the resolution process.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Distribution orders
“(1) This section applies where the IFR has given a notice under section (Proposal stage)(9).
(2) Before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the notice under section (Proposal stage)(9) was given, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice of the distribution order it proposes to make.
(3) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (2) by up to a further 14 days if it considers it appropriate to do so.
(4) A notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) give reasons for the proposed distribution order,
(b) explain how the proposed order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),
(c) explain how the proposed order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c),
(d) invite each of the two specified competition organisers to make representations about the proposed distribution order,
(e) specify the period within which such representations may be made, and
(f) specify the means by which they may be made,
and the IFR must have regard to any representations which are duly made.
(5) The period specified under subsection (4)(d) must be a period of not less than 14 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period specified under subsection (4)(d), the IFR must make an order requiring relevant revenue to be distributed in a way that the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(a) (a ‘distribution order’).
(7) In making a distribution order the IFR must—
(a) apply the principles mentioned in subsection (8), and
(b) have regard to any proposal submitted under section (Proposal stage)(9)(b).
See also section 7 (in particular the IFR’s general duty to exercise its functions in a way that advances one or more of its objectives and to have regard to various matters).
(8) The principles referred to in subsection (7)(a) are that—
(a) the distribution order should not place an undue burden on the commercial interests of either specified competition organiser, and
(b) the distribution order should not result in a lower amount of relegation revenue being distributed to a club during the relevant period than would have been distributed to the club during that period had the order not been made.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)—
‘relegation revenue’ means revenue distributed by a specified competition organiser to a club in consequence of a team operated by the club being relegated from a specified competition organised by the specified competition organiser;
‘relevant period’, in relation to a distribution order, means the period of one year beginning with the final day of the first football season in respect of which relegation revenue would be distributed in pursuance of the order.
(10) A distribution order—
(a) must impose on the specified competition organisers such obligations as the IFR considers appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the requirements set out in the order, and
(b) may, where a distribution agreement is in force between the specified competition organisers in relation to the same qualifying football season or seasons to which the order relates, provide for that agreement to have effect subject to provision contained in the order.
(11) At the same time as making a distribution order, the IFR must give the two specified competition organisers a notice—
(a) including a copy of the order,
(b) giving reasons for the order,
(c) explaining how the order applies the principles mentioned in subsection (8),
(d) explaining how the order addresses the findings set out under section (Proposal stage)(3)(c), and
(e) including information about the possible consequences under Part 8 of not complying with the order.
(12) The IFR must, as soon as reasonably practicable after making a distribution order, publish the order or a summary of the order.”—(Stephanie Peacock.)
This new clause substitutes clause 62 with a new clause providing that the IFR may make a distribution order that distributes relevant revenue in the way that the IFR considers most appropriate for the purpose of resolving the question or questions for resolution.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 7
Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling
“A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”—(Max Wilkinson.)
This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. We are not calling for a ban on gambling with the new clause, but we are calling for a ban on advertising it through one of our most culturally powerful platforms. The new clause is a proportionate, evidence-led measure to break the link between football and gambling harm. When we consider that 70% of young people are aware of being exposed to gambling advertisements, is it any wonder, when these adverts are emblazoned on football team shirts and plastered on the side of every pitch for everyone to see?
Gambling firms spend a huge amount of money every year on advertising. They do not lack influence or reach. Gambling has much wider impacts than simply in the football stadium. Since 2011, gambling losses in the UK have risen by 80%, and new data from the Gambling Commission indicates that up to 2.5% of adults in Great Britain may be suffering from gambling harms. Football is unique in its reach and influence. Unlike alcohol and tobacco, gambling is still embedded in the game. Club sponsorships, half-time adverts and pundit discussions all feature it. If we do not act here, we send a message that profits matter more than people’s wellbeing. We understand that the Government think this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is an important discussion for us to have in the context of anything to do with football.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman give us some sense of his assessment of how much money the new clause would take out of football?
Max Wilkinson
It is not about the money that this would take out of football, but the money that is taken out of the pockets of many football fans who are being exploited by predatory gambling companies every day.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. The Government are clear that, wherever gambling advertising and sponsorship appears, it must be socially responsible. The Government do not believe that the regulator should have a role in commercial matters such as sponsorship, which are rightly decisions for clubs and competition organisers. We must be wary of scope creep that sees the regulator straying into matters that should be reserved for the industry, and stepping on the toes of industry authorities such as the FA. What constitutes the promotion of gambling could be interpreted extremely broadly, with significant consequences for clubs, and sport more widely.
For instance, the new clause could be interpreted as meaning that players could not take part in competitions that had gambling sponsors. Clearly, that would have significant unintended consequences for clubs and the sport more widely. All major football bodies have published their joint gambling sponsorship code of conduct, which sets minimum standards for socially responsible gambling sponsorship within football. We are working closely with sporting bodies to review the implementation and impact of the codes of conduct to ensure that they have a meaningful impact. This review will provide key evidence to inform the most appropriate next steps for gambling sponsorship. The Premier League has already made the decision to ban front-of-shirt sponsorship by gambling firms by the end of next season.
For the reasons I have set out, I am unable to accept the new clause, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
Max Wilkinson
I am pleased that this is on the Minister’s mind, and that the Government seem to understand the problem. I think we would all accept that there is a bigger problem with gambling adverts in football which needs to be solved. Whenever we turn on Sky on a Sunday afternoon, it is obvious to all what is going on, as the adverts are often completely unrepresentative of the reality of football gambling.
I have a particular concern about those who are engaged in punditry while encouraging us in half-time adverts to spend our money. That is a clear conflict of interest that needs to be resolved at some point. I accept that at this stage, the Government are not going to take it on. We will not press the new clause to a vote today, as we recognise the numbers in the room, but it is an important discussion that all parliamentarians need to be involved in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Free to air coverage
“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—
(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,
(b) the League Cup Final, and
(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals,
are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.
(3) In this section “free-to-air television” means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”—(Max Wilkinson.)
This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Televising of football matches of national interest—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 299 (categorisation of listed events) (2)(d) insert—
“(e) the Independent Football Regulator, established by the Football Governance Act 2024, in relation to televising of football matches between licensed football clubs.””
This new clause adds the IFR as a statutory consultee on the listing of sporting events for free-to-air coverage.
Max Wilkinson
With new clauses 9 and 13, we are calling for an expansion of the crown jewels of sports broadcasting to ensure that key fixtures from the domestic football calendar are made available on free-to-air television. Members will have recently seen some of the coverage about dwindling viewership figures for this year on TNT and Sky. That should give us all cause for concern, particularly those who are involved in the finances of football. Specifically, we are calling for the free-to-air package to include 10 Premier League games a season, the League cup final, and the play-offs for the Championship, League One and League Two, in addition to those already free to air, such as the FA cup, World cup and the Euros.
This is not about undermining private broadcasters, but viewing figures are on the wane. We had a 17% drop in audience numbers last season. At the same time, there are signs that the value of Premier League broadcast rights has plateaued as more live games have been added to recent packages. This is an opportunity for broadcasters and leagues alike to innovate their offering. Our proposals could open the door to new forms of commercial engagement, such as sponsorship tied to mass viewership, broader brand exposure and appointment-to-view opportunities that bring in new audiences. That approach has worked elsewhere across Europe, most notably in La Liga, where one game a week is free to air, keeping the league accessible to all fans, regardless of their ability to pay.
Recent research shows that in general Premier League fans are more likely to come from lower-income backgrounds than those who regularly attend matches. The hon. Member for Spelthorne has referenced the eye-watering cost of his season ticket on a number of occasions in this Committee. For many supporters, attending games is unaffordable, and with the rising cost of living, stacking multiple sports subscriptions is out of reach for too many households. Increasing free-to-air coverage would not just make games more accessible; it would reignite national moments of the kind we see during the World cup or the Euros. Those moments build unity, inspire young people and renew grassroots interest in the game.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham for tabling new clauses 9 and 13, which concern the televising of football matches as listed events and free to air. First, I want to be clear that it is not an issue for the Bill or the regulator, but I would like to use this opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the issue.
The Government are keen to ensure that sporting events of national interest are made available to the public as widely as possible. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against that investment, and not risk it.
As for the Bill, there have been strong voices from all sides that the regulator must have a tightly defined remit, and must not intervene in areas where it is more appropriate for football authorities or others to lead. We agree with that, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the bar for statutory, regulatory intervention in any market should be very high. It would not be appropriate for the regulator to intervene in commercial decisions between the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. Decisions relating to the number of matches of specific competitions that are broadcast are determined through commercial negotiation and are subject to factors such as rights costs and scheduling considerations. Additionally, we do not feel it is right to expand the regulator’s remit by including it as a body that must be consulted on listed events.
Decisions relating to the coverage of certain sporting and other events of national interest are, again, a matter for the relevant broadcasters and rights holders. A widened regulatory remit considering broadcasting and commercial decisions would distract from the key responsibility of the regulator and widen the scope of the Bill. The regulator will ensure that there are financially viable clubs for fans to watch, both at their grounds and on television. For those reasons, I am unable to support the hon. Member’s new clause.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Fan representation: mandatory golden share
“(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation.
(2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to—
(a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area,
(b) change the club’s name,
(c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or
(d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by The Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League.
(3) A licensed club must—
(a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction,
(b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and
(c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share.
(4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may—
(a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share,
(b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and
(c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share.
(5) In this section—
‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters;
‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”—(Max Wilkinson.)
This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 21—IFR duty to provide information and support on golden shares—
“(1) Within 6 months of the passing of this Act the IFR must publish guidance for recognised Supporters’ Trusts or equivalent democratic fan organisations holding a golden share as specified in section [Fan representation: mandatory golden share].
(2) The guidance published under subsection (1) must explain the purpose of a golden share and advise on how holders of a golden share can engage with their regulated club when utilising the rights bestowed by the golden share.
(3) The IFR must also provide an information support service for holders of a golden share to contact for advice on utilising their golden share.”
This new clause adds a duty for the IFR to support fan organisations in the use of their golden share through advice services and guidance.
Max Wilkinson
The spirit of the Bill is rightly focused on ensuring the financial sustainability of the game and, crucially, protecting the heritage of clubs by giving fans a greater voice. As I have said, we support the Bill. In the spirit of the noble aims of the Bill, we have tabled new clause 10, which proposes a simple but powerful safeguard: a mandatory “golden share” for fans. It would require all licensed clubs to
“issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust”
or equivalent democratic fan body. The share would grant fans a veto over fundamental decisions affecting the club’s identity and future, including relocation of its home ground, changing its name, altering its primary colours or badge, and entering or withdrawing it from competitions not sanctioned by the FA, Premier League or EFL.
The golden share was an idea included in Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review, but it seems to have been forgotten. We are simply bringing fans’ voices back to the table. The Committee will, of course, be able to think of many instances where such a veto would have helped. I will raise three examples: the attempt by Assem Allam, the owner of Hull City, to rebrand the club as “Hull Tigers”; the relocation of Wimbledon to Milton Keynes; and the time that Cardiff changed their shirts to red. The new clause aims to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. It would be a positive step; we urge the Government to accept it.
Stephanie Peacock
I will respond to new clauses 10 and 21 together because they both relate to a “golden share”. The regulator will operate an advocacy-first approach, and the regulatory principles in clause 8 set out a collaborative approach, including with fans. Although we expect that the regulator will welcome any club that feels a golden share is the best approach for it, such an arrangement would require a significant restructure at the majority of clubs. The new clause would place a burden on clubs to make considerable changes, such as establishing a community benefit society if one does not already exist, and amending fundamental legal documents.
Instead, the regulator will give strong, irreversible legal protections to prevent damage to the most important aspects of the club. That will include regulatory protection for club heritage and stadium changes, as well as ensuring fan engagement. As we have discussed, clubs will be required to consult fans on key issues that are important to them. The Bill mandates fan consultation on a club’s strategic direction and business priorities, and on operational and match day issues, which specifically include ticket pricing and matters related to the club’s heritage. Such consultation, along with the protections on stadiums and key points of club heritage such as colours, emblem and name, ensure that fans are put at the heart of their clubs without the burdens that could, as I have just discussed, be associated with a golden share.
For those reasons, I am unable to support the new clause.
The Chair
I am afraid I reneged on my duty to call Mr Naish. I think I was too interested in the point about Hull City.
James Naish
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I want to place it on the record that the Notts County supporters’ trust got in touch with me over the weekend, and it is very much sympathetic to new clause 10. The trust was set up in 2003 to save the club when it was in administration, and it has played an important role in saving the club from being wound up. It fully supports any improvements in supporter representation, and its representatives specifically noted that they would like to see at least one independent supporter director on the board of all professional clubs, which measure would push in the same type of direction as the new clause. I recognise what the Minister has just said, but I thank the supporters’ trust for getting in touch. I also recognise that, where trusts are in existence, they are doing excellent things for their clubs.
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituency, and I am pleased that he has been able to represent his local fan trust. The Bill will require fan engagement at all clubs with the adequate and effective means in place to deliver the licensing requirement. The regime does allow for a bespoke approach to be taken at each club, based on what is best in each club’s specific circumstances. A supporter director was considered by the fan-led review and support for the concept was mixed. The review concluded that
“a fan director rarely delivers on fan expectations.”
Clubs are welcome to introduce any additional engagement strategy that they think will be of benefit to them and their fanbases. Many clubs have already responded to the fan-led review, made decisions to push themselves beyond the recommendations, and implemented fan engagement strategies that they think will work best for their club. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that case.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Protection of assets of regulated clubs
“(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan—
(a) any stadium,
(b) any training facility,
(c) any trophies,
(d) any car park,
(e) any hotel.
(2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where—
(a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and
(b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral.
(3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”—(Max Wilkinson.)
This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We cannot claim to be reforming football unless we tackle one of its most dangerous long-term trends—the creeping financialisation and asset-stripping of clubs. The hon. Member for High Peak has mentioned this on a number of occasions; he has experienced it in his former role as chair of the RamsTrust. New clause 11 would introduce protections to ensure that core assets such as stadiums, training grounds, trophies and, in some cases, commercial properties like car parks and hotels, remain in the club’s ownership, where they belong. Specifically, the new clause would ensure that assets cannot be sold off or used as security for loans without the prior written approval of the regulator; that the regulator may give its approval only if the asset is demonstrably causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial health; and, critically, that if any of the assets are owned by another organisation rather than the club itself, they must be transferred back into the club’s ownership before any sale of the club can proceed.
The current system allows owners to move critical assets out of a club’s hands with little or no transparency. Once that happens, the club often faces high rent obligations to use its own stadium and training facilities, has weakened negotiating power in takeovers and insolvency, and potentially experiences a complete disconnection from its historical home. Derby County are not the only example of where that has happened. We think this concept is worth taking forward, and we hope the Government are listening.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He and I have a shared aim to ensure that there are sufficient protections for home grounds and other assets. We have already discussed the issue of protections for home grounds, so I understand the intention behind the amendment. However, the Government do not believe that it is a proportionate measure. The amendment would place significant blocks on any action to alter the financial arrangements of a long list of assets, and would substantially interfere with the property rights of clubs.
Clubs should be able to exercise commercial discretion over the use of wider club-owned assets. For example, the sale or refinancing of assets can sometimes be an acceptable and prudent way of improving a club’s liquidity, if necessary, but the amendment would remove that ability. There are other measures in the legislation to protect against the mismanagement of club assets, including the financial regulation provisions, regulatory oversight of financial plans, and an enhanced owners and directors test to ensure that owners are best placed to be the custodians of a club.
Last Thursday, I set out my understanding that the regulator could prevent the sale of training grounds through the use of discretionary licence conditions. I want to clarify that the regulator cannot directly block the sale of a training ground through licence conditions, but, where appropriate, it can act to discourage a sale and to mitigate any harmful financial impacts of a sale. The regulator can only set discretionary licence conditions in a limited number of areas. As per clause 22, which we have debated already, the regulator can only impose financial discretionary licence conditions that relate to liquidity requirements, debt management and overall cost reductions.
However, the regulator does have the levers to take action to protect a club’s financial sustainability if there ever arises a scenario in which the club intends to sell its training ground. By selling a valuable asset, a club may weaken its balance sheet and increase its financial risk. If there was a problem, the regulator could require the club to take mitigating action. For example, it could place a liquidity requirement on the club. The regulator could also use its powers to discourage the club from selling its training ground in the first place—for example, by indicating that if the club were to sell its training ground, the regulator would have no choice but to impose more significant financial restrictions on the club through discretionary conditions, thereby strongly steering the club away from that course of action. If that scenario were to arise because a bad actor sought to asset-strip the club, the regulator’s owners and directors test would kick in to remove that unsuitable custodian. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw the motion.
Max Wilkinson
I have heard what the Minister said. She seems to be implying that this issue can be dealt with by the Bill, and that the regulator will have an eye on these sorts of things. I am somewhat reassured, but I hope that when the regulator is introduced—and we hope it is introduced—it will be given a strong steer that it ought to make sure that the owners of clubs are not stripping assets. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Duty not to stage home matches outside United Kingdom without approval
“(1) A regulated club must not stage any home fixture in a competitive match at a venue outside the United Kingdom without the approval of the IFR.
(2) The IFR may only grant approval under subsection (1) if the fixture is not part of a specified competition.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a ‘home fixture’ means any fixture where the club is designated as the home team by the rules of the relevant competition.”—(Max Wilkinson.)
This new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside of the United Kingdom. It will allow regulated clubs to stage non-competitive fixtures outside of the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Max Wilkinson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When we discussed this issue on Second Reading, I said that the prospect of Arsenal playing Manchester City in Dubai should have all football fans reaching for the sick bucket—I assume most Man City and Arsenal fans would agree with that. I remain of that view. The new clause would prevent a regulated club from staging a competitive home fixture outside the UK. It would allow a regulated club to stage non-competitive fixtures outside the UK.
Football is our national sport but too many fans are already priced out of attending matches. Clubs with large overseas fan bases clearly have a profit motive to schedule games outside the UK. The new clause would erect further barriers to stop that happening. We do not want barriers to local fans, who have supported their clubs through thick and thin, getting to the game.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Member is pointing to a real fear for fans, particularly Premier League fans. In Europe, Serie A has said it will be playing competitive matches in the United States within two years. The Spanish super cup, its equivalent of the Community Shield, is already played in Saudi Arabia. It is important that we collectively as a Bill Committee keep an eye on this matter, so that the regulator uses its power to prevent that happening. Nothing would bespeak a bigger betrayal of fans than competitive matches played overseas that they could not get to.
Max Wilkinson
I strongly agree. This is a real risk that we cannot look past. With the increasing foreign ownership of clubs, many people would clearly look to buy a football club and market it around the world by taking it on tour. We should not put up with that in this country; this is our national game and it should be protected as such. Staging competitive UK fixtures outside the UK must not be allowed. It would dilute football’s links to the communities that it needs to continue to survive. It would act only in the interests of club owners who might not always have the interests of fans at heart.
Lincoln Jopp
I am listening with interest to the hon. Member’s comments, but does he think that link to home is diluted for American football or baseball when those leagues play a match in London?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. The US has a franchise system, so every club can be moved wherever it wants. Someone who is an Oakland Raiders fan would probably also have been an LA Raiders fan. Where else did the Raiders play? There was definitely a third place, at least, in my lifetime, because clubs regularly move around the nation. When there is that franchise problem in America, hardcore elements of a National Football League club campaign against their club moving, and then campaign for it to move back to that city. The LA Raiders are a case in point.
That link between clubs and communities has already been severed in America, so it is less of a concern that the Jacksonville Jaguars are effectively now London’s team. London has taken that club to its heart, just as people across the UK have taken many other NFL and American sports teams to their heart. The hon. Member raises an interesting point, but I am not sure there is a direct comparison.
We risk getting to that point where some English and Welsh football teams go abroad—although Merthyr Tydfil might like the idea of going on tour, if they get up to the level of league where they are regulated. We need to ensure that we do not get into the position where our teams go on tour around the world to play competitive Premier League games. That would clearly be a gross betrayal of what we hold dear as football fans.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for tabling this new clause. I know this is an incredibly important issue for many fans, and I am grateful to be able to address it today, after a number of Members made contributions. FIFA is currently reviewing its position on overseas league matches. It has committed to looking at how that may impact supporters as well as players, along with a number of other valuable considerations.
We appreciate this is an extremely important issue for fans and we do not want to see any developments that undermine the heritage or integrity of the game. It is crucial that fans are consulted and that their view is taken into account on any proposals that would take matches away from the local community in which they usually play.
The Government have spoken about this issue to the FA, which has a right to veto any such future proposals. It has assured us that it agrees that fans’ views must be taken into account when considering this important issue. To be clear, the Bill already ensures that by giving the regulator the power to ensure that clubs consult with their fans on operational and match day issues. We have not tried to list everything that might be considered a match day issue in the Bill, but let me be clear that moving matches abroad would be an operational and match day issue. Fully licensed clubs must have mechanisms in place to adequately and effectively consult their fans about this issue and they must take fans’ views into account when making decisions about it.
Given the importance of this developing issue, the Government will remain in conversation with the relevant governing bodies to ensure that fans’ voices continue to be heard. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Max Wilkinson
Hon. Members are all waiting for it—this was going to be the moment that we were going to force a vote, but given that the Minister has put on record the fact that this will be considered an operational and match day issue for the regulator, so fans must be consulted on it and would probably have a veto, we are content that we do not need to press the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Impact on regulator of changes in Government administration
“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”—(Mr French.)
This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that new clause 17 is important, given the speculation that the Minister might soon be going somewhere else on a free transfer. On a more serious note, this is a sensible provision, given the legal requirements on the Secretary of State in the Bill. For example, there has been much speculation that if the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were disbanded, sport, for example, would end up in the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which would mean a different relationship with the football regulator going forward. Therefore, it is important to include a review mechanism in the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause suggests that if DCMS were to be abolished, or if football were to be moved out of the Department’s portfolio, that should trigger a review of the regulator. A machinery of government change should have no bearing on whether there is continued need for an independent regulator established by Parliament. Just because circumstances in the sponsoring Department change, that does not mean that the regulator should be subject to a review. Machinery of government changes are common; we saw several of them under the previous Government. We do, however, believe that the regulator should be assessed and reviewed at the right time, as part of important monitoring and evaluation of the regulation.
Max Wilkinson
Were DCMS to be abolished, which Department does she think the regulator would end up reporting into?
Stephanie Peacock
I could not possibly speculate on such a hypothetical question.
I will say that clause 96, which we have already debated, mandates a review of the Act within five years of the licensing regime being fully commenced. Among other things, the review will look into whether the regulator has been effectively achieving its objectives, or whether those objectives might be better achieved in a different way. There are also other ways in which the regulator can be scrutinised and held to account by Parliament, such as through Select Committee hearings. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his new clause.
Mr French
I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response and to the intervention from the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Given the point that we are making about the role of the Secretary of State in relation to some of the regulator’s powers, we think that that hypothetical question is key. I gave examples of Departments that sport or football could move to, such as the Department of Health and Social Care or the Department for Education, which we think would significantly change the perspective on the business side of football. We will therefore press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is designed to improve the transparency of the regulator, ensuring that the public, football and Parliament are aware of the risks that we have discussed at length—in particular, any issues arising from international regulators such as UEFA or FIFA. We believe it is important to have transparency, and to ensure that Members understand the risk, as can football clubs. The Opposition will look to press the new clause to a Division, subject to the Minister’s comments.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause. There has been a lot of debate in the House, including in Committee and in the other place, about letters received from UEFA. There have been particular concerns that the Bill and the regulator should not breach UEFA or FIFA statutes, and there is a strong feeling that we must not risk English clubs or national teams being banned from international competitions through this legislation.
Let me be clear again that the regulator will be operationally independent of the Government and will not exert an undue influence on the FA’s ability to govern the game. The extent of its statutory powers and duties will simply not allow it to do so. That is why both UEFA and the FA have confirmed that the Bill as drafted does not breach UEFA statutes. Indeed, the FA is on the record as supporting the regulator’s introduction.
The new clause would require the publication of all future UEFA and FIFA correspondence received by the regulator or the Government, or correspondence relating to the regulator. Requiring private communications to be made public would serve only to discourage honest and frank conversations with key stakeholders, and would thus stand in the way of constructive relationships with UEFA and FIFA. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments. The Committee should also be aware that the FA has warned specifically about scope creep, which is something that the Opposition have also been very concerned about. We therefore think it is prudent to ensure that there is transparency and awareness of risk going forward. If there were to be significant warnings from UEFA or FIFA about scope creep, the new clause is an important mechanism for us to understand that as parliamentarians, clubs and fans of football. We will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It has been 40 years since alcohol was first banned in view of the pitch. Given the support that lifting the measure has among a number of clubs, the Football Supporters’ Association, and even some Labour MPs, we urge the Government to consider the new clause.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Does the shadow Minister consider the new clause to be scope creep?
Mr French
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point—I was probably due one of those after five days in Committee—but if we are talking about the interests of fans, we believe that this measure should be considered. Some clubs might want the option; some might want it only in certain areas—for example, excluding family areas of stadiums. We believe that fans, especially those who act responsibly, should be treated as adults. A bit more common sense around how the ban works in the modern age might stop some of the binge drinking that happens before games because fans cannot drink in the stands.
We urge the Government to give careful consideration to this option to consult. We are not instructing them to take a definite position, but just to consult.
Max Wilkinson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and to be in raucous agreement with the shadow Minister.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member suggests that we have not sided in any Divisions with the official Opposition; the record will show that we have.
Max Wilkinson
No, several.
I have been to many football matches at more than 50 Football League grounds, and every time I have attended with groups of people who have been in the pub until the last possible moment, forcing down an extra pint—or an extra lucky gin and orange, which was a tradition that a group of my friends used to have—before a game. They did that because they knew that once they got into the ground, they were subject to ridiculous rules that meant they were not treated as adults. These people were very much adults. They were drinking real ale and talking about cricket, sport and things they had done at work that week. They were not football hooligans. We know that the majority of people who watch football matches are not football hooligans.
These rules date from a bygone era when people were concerned that everyone who went to the football was a hooligan. The atmosphere in grounds these days is entirely different from what it was back in the 1980s and 1990s, when things happened that nobody would want to see now. We are drifting in the right direction, back towards standing in stadiums—that is positive—and we need to start drifting back towards a situation in which we treat football fans as adults and recognise that the current ridiculous ban means that people are more likely to be more drunk at football.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. People can sit on the terraces at Twickenham and watch rugby union while having a pint of Guinness. Does my hon. Friend agree that that causes no concern around behaviour, and could easily be transferred to the football stadium?
Max Wilkinson
I agree. The assumption that football fans are hooligans is clearly not borne out by the statistics any more. We need to take a real-life, real-world view of what happens as a result of these rules.
As the shadow Minister said, the new clause does not say that everyone must drink at football grounds or that the ban must be overturned. It puts the issue in the context of a review, after which clubs might be able to reintroduce alcohol in stadiums. That is important. I believe that the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) recently suggested such a measure, so there is clearly cross-party support.
Lincoln Jopp
I welcome the hon. Member’s support for the new clause. Does he agree that things have significantly changed since the 1970s? The majority of fan trouble is now fuelled by cocaine, not alcohol. We should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time for good, honest fans.
Max Wilkinson
I think that we should reclaim a pie and pint at half-time, during the first half and during the second half. I have attended a football match and seen cocaine somewhat brazenly being taken in the loos at half-time. Those of us who attend football regularly will see that, and it is very concerning—more concerning, I would suggest, than people drinking beer during while watching football. I draw my remarks to a close, other than to say that this is a long-overdue debate.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope he forgives me for not being a supporter of a club at which gin is the normally consumed pre-match beverage.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I regularly attend home matches for Dartford football club, where people can drink in view of the pitch and there is no trouble—it is a great, family atmosphere. However, just to be real here, I have also seen situations where alcohol is clearly fuelling aggression, violence and bad behaviour for some of the reasons that have been pointed out. I am a little fearful of very significant consumption in view of the pitch; we still need to be careful of that. Were we to allow limited opportunities to consume alcohol in view of the pitch, in certain parts of the grounds, in the leagues where it is currently not permitted, we would need careful controls to prevent the problems that have been identified.
Max Wilkinson
To clarify the point about the lucky gin and orange, I believe that my friends chose that as a pre-match drink because they had already had five pints of real ale and were no longer able to fit in that quantity. Having gin on top of five pints of real ale is clearly not a good idea. There are other opportunities for people to have all kinds of drinks before football. The point is that people force down drinks in pubs because they know that they cannot drink during the game, and that means that they are more likely to be drunk in the football ground. We support the new clause.
Mr Betts
This is a difficult issue. None of us wants fan behaviour to get worse, given that it has largely stabilised at most grounds. Such behaviour happens not just before the game but at half-time: fans rush down and get at least two or three pints in during the quarter-of-an-hour break.
I ask the Minister reflect on this proposal; I am not asking her to agree with it. She might talk to colleagues in Europe through UEFA. I have been to a Bundesliga game in Berlin. They serve beer there—in quite large quantities—but it is 2%, so it is weaker. That is one way to do it. It seems to be a regulation, and it seems to work.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should explore what is happening in Europe. Alcohol is sold in lower rates, and only in certain areas of the stadium and only at certain games. I, for one, would be willing to welcome alcohol, but there would have to be a really good review, involving the police, that looks at what is done elsewhere. As a Portsmouth fan, let me say that there is absolutely no way that it should be served at a Portsmouth versus Southampton game.
Mr Betts
I would have thought that if my hon. Friend was going to watch Portsmouth play Southampton, she would want to be well inebriated before she had to watch Southampton win—[Interruption.] I am sorry to upset her.
I say to the Minister that we do not have to make the decision now—this is not the Bill to do it—but we should at least reflect on it with the FSA.
Lincoln Jopp
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the new clause is not asking for the ban to be lifted. It is very much in the spirit of what he is saying. It says that there should be a requirement to consult, which seems to be the process that he is advocating, so I do not think it would be out of place in the Bill.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling this new clause and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. I gently say to him that I think that his claims to end binge drinking would probably be scope creep.
This is a very serious issue. As the shadow Minister may be aware, the legislation in question is owned by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is right that this is a challenging issue, but I recognise that it is important and I will therefore raise it with my ministerial counterparts in the Home Office.
I hope the shadow Minister will appreciate that, as we have made clear throughout the Committee, the Bill seeks to ensure that football clubs are sustainable. It would not be appropriate for the Government to agree to review legislation about alcohol at football matches in the context of this Bill, given the significant public order implications, but I will reflect the comments from across the Committee to my counterparts in the Home Office. On that basis, I hope he will withdraw the new clause.
Mr French
I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this important debate on an issue that has real impacts on fans and stadiums around the country, as we have heard already. I have also seen some of the behaviours that have been referred to, such as people rushing to drink before kick-off or rushing at half-time to make sure that they can get a drink in. I have also travelled around Europe watching football. I am a big lover of sport, so I do travel and watch games when I go abroad. I have never come across many issues when I have been abroad, where the rules are different.
The Minister’s comments were interesting. I could make the usual joke about how for people to watch a team in red, they need a lot of drink—especially at the moment, given current form. However, the expressions of Committee members assure me that this is a live issue that they have concerns about. I think we should test the opinion of the Committee with a vote.
Mr French
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that the provisions of new clause 20 are missing from the Bill as drafted. We have debated issues involving clubs, fans and leagues, but there has been little on player welfare. In different debates, we have discussed scheduling and the impact on player welfare of the excessive number of games in different competitions. The perfect example is the club world cup taking place in America. There are also other competing demands on player welfare and the welfare of retired players, as we have discussed.
This new clause on player welfare would, within one year of the passing of this Bill, require the Secretary of State to review how to improve the welfare of football players, considering neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs, the number of games footballers have to play each season—in line with my earlier comments—and the impact on current and former professional footballers’ welfare. It is a straightforward amendment, very much in the spirit of the new duties being asked of the regulator and the leagues going forward. We would therefore be interested in the Minister’s response.
Mr Betts
Briefly, will the Minister look at something else directly related to the new clause, which is the safety of the grounds that players play at? Three years ago, the PFA approached me about a horrible incident at Bath City, where a young player went headlong into a concrete wall and suffered severe brain damage. I was surprised to find that the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 does not cover players, but only spectators. That is a shocking omission, although we can probably understand how it got there.
At the time, I went to see the then Sports Minister with the PFA. He was supportive, and he agreed that he would write, with the PFA and others, to get the leagues and the other football authorities to look seriously at this issue. I think that guidance was given about how they should approach ground safety for players and the dangers they could face, such as running headlong into a concrete wall with no protection between the wall and the pitch.
The Minister probably will not be able to answer me now, but will she investigate how far that guidance changed behaviour and whether it had any impact on making grounds safer for players? It is an issue. One incident caused severe damage to the wellbeing of one young player. It could happen anywhere. That was at Bath City, which is not a regulated club. It is an issue not just of regulation but of player safety, and we ought to be concerned about that.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for his new clause. Player welfare is an incredibly important issue, and as we have discussed previously in this Committee, I agree that the welfare of footballers should be safeguarded. But the regulator will have a precise focus on financial regulation, corporate governance, fan engagement and heritage. It will be focused only on the market failures that the industry cannot itself address. The regulator has not been designed to address sporting issues such as player welfare or equipped with the relevant powers and duties. The safety, wellbeing and welfare of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount, and that is why we have committed to looking further at those issues. While it is not appropriate for this Bill, I am fully aware of the importance of prioritising player welfare and ensuring that former players and their families have the support they need.
National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of their sports, and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm, including head injuries. They are, of course, independent of Government, but the Government expect national governing bodies to make the health and safety of players their top priority. The Secretary of State and I recently met with a small group of affected family members and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering from dementia. We heard at first hand players’ experiences and the views of groups on how safety and welfare at all levels of the sport could be improved.
On neurodegenerative diseases, we are considering what is required, including how to support football to come together and address the problems raised. We are committed to supporting the families and the football authorities to come together to address the issues raised, and our officials are in the process of arranging meetings to explore that further.
The number of games that footballers play each season is a matter for competition organisers and the Professional Footballers’ Association. It would not be right for the regulator to become involved in those matters, which are not ultimately about the sustainability of clubs.
Before I finish, I commit to writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East on ground safety, and to taking that issue away to investigate, as he asks.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister said that the regulator’s purview is the financial sustainability of clubs, but that that was not in any way related to the number of games that teams play in a single season. Surely they are directly related, because clubs will be tempted to thrash their players in order to generate revenues from television and gate receipts?
Stephanie Peacock
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is a match day issue. I direct the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee to the regulatory principles, which we changed under this Government to explicitly reference players. We think that that is an important change. I am afraid I cannot support the new clause.
Mr French
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers in response to this new clause. I fully understand the point that she is making about it being up to the sport to better govern the welfare of players, and I have great sympathy with her on that. Ultimately, however, this Bill has been brought forward because the Government believe that football has not been good at regulating itself, and so we are debating that in Committee. Given the widespread concerns around player welfare, it seems to me that on sustainability—we had a long debate about that on the first day of the Committee—and where it sits, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne hit the nail on the head by saying that the sustainability of clubs depends very much on the sustainability of players.
While I am not going to get a violin out for Premier League stars who may be on £400,000 or £500,000 a week, there is a broader point here about how far that can be pushed and what happens to players’ health—particularly, as we have heard from families, when they reach retirement. As the Minister has mentioned, there are a number of problems. We would like to give some serious consideration to where this needs to sit, because there does appear to be an issue here. As such, I will not seek leave to withdraw the new clause, and I hope that we can return to the matter at a later stage as well.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 22 relates to a consultation on changes to kick-off times. For football fans across the country, last-minute changes to suit TV schedules have a direct impact on their plans for that sporting event, whether having to procure a hotel because they cannot get home from the game as public transport is not running, or having to change their whole plan and maybe resell their ticket. The 2025 FA cup final had a kick-off time of 4.30 pm, and in the year Wigan beat Man City it was a 5 pm kick-off time. The last train to leave for Manchester from London is at 9.01 pm. So if the FA cup final this year had gone to extra time and penalties, fans would not have been able to make that last train back home to Manchester. As a Manchester United fan, I am not one for protecting City fans, but it just seems ludicrous that for the 2025 FA cup final, the BBC wanted to keep the kick-off at 3 pm because it had Eurovision later that night to schedule and ITV wanted a 5.30 pm kick-off because it knew that would increase its revenue. Both clubs were consulted, the broadcasters were consulted, but the fans were not. This clause seeks for the regulator to have a role in adjudicating on kick-off times.
Listening to the Minister in response to other amendments, I was concerned she may consider ruling out this clause out because it affects commercial activity and broadcasters. I am now hoping it falls under the purview of operational and match day issues, and the regulator will have power to intervene.
Stephanie Peacock
The Government do not believe that it is appropriate for the regulator to intervene in the sporting calendar, including interfering with match day timings. This clause would widen the scope to cover on-pitch decisions, which is something we wish to avoid. However, I am aware of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised regarding the impact timings can have on fans. There may be consequential issues such as match day travel and club communication with fans that would be captured by “operational and match day issues” as one of the relevant matters for fan consultation discussed in our debate on part 5. In most cases, however, the kick-off time itself is not always an issue that club have enough control on to adequately consult fans and respond to opinion. To mandate them to do so could therefore be problematic. It is well within the gift of the leagues and the governing bodies to address concerns surrounding kick-off times, and the Government remain in conversation with stakeholders to ensure that fans are engaged properly by those bodies on this issue. For these reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.
Mr Dillon
I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. I think it is a crucial aspect. However, noting the numbers in the room, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Duty to create emergency fund
(1) As a condition of purchase of a regulated club the new owner may, if required by the IFR, pay an amount equal to the club's quarterly forecast expenditure into an emergency fund (referred to in this section as “the fund”).
(2) Withdrawals cannot be made from the fund while the person who deposited the fund is the owner of the club.
(3) When a club’s quarterly forecast expenditure increases the owner must increase their deposit into the fund to match the increased forecast.
(4) If an owner does not update the fund to match an increase in the club’s quarterly forecast expenditure the IFR may suspend the regulated club’s operating licence until such time as the required deposit into the fund has been made.
(5) When a club files for insolvency the owner abrogates all claim to the fund and the fund may be accessed to pay club salaries and day to day running costs.
(6) When the owner who deposited the fund sells the club they may withdraw the fund but the fund must first be used to repay any debts accrued during the time period they were the owner.”—(Mr Dillon.)
This new clause gives the IFR an option to require new club owners to establish an emergency fund to provide for club operational costs such as player and staff wages in an emergency scenario.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause introduces a duty to create an emergency fund if the regulator has concerns over the financial resources of a particular owner. If a player is not paid for two consecutive months, then under FIFA regulations they have the ability to terminate their contract with 14 days’ notice. However, that still means they are out of pocket. We know that there are real consequences from players not being paid, such as the contract termination that they may go through, the player and the fans having a loss of confidence in that club, and of course financial distress to individuals not paid. Clubs can have point deductions if they do not play players on time and registration embargoes as well. However, that still does not address the issue of the player and staff not being paid. As recently as March this year, the team of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East, Sheffield Wednesday, did not pay its players on time. This is a live issue that we see season in, season out. An emergency fund would mean that players could have recourse to be paid on time.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. While I understand the intent of adding this provision and creating an emergency fund, we have been clear that this is not a zero-failure system. Clubs can and do go into administration for many reasons, sometimes beyond their control. This regime tries to minimise the likelihood of that happening and gives them the best chance of being a going concern football club. This means that there is an assumption that a club will continue operating and meet its obligations for the foreseeable future
However, I reassure the hon. Member that the Bill’s strengthened statutory tests on the new prospective owners, as we discussed in the debate on part of 4 of the Bill, will work to deliver the intent behind the new clause. At the point of entry, prospective owners will be required to pass the financial plans and resources test. This will demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to run the club and have considered things such as the estimated running cost. This will help mitigate against any future need for an emergency fund.
On an ongoing basis, if a club is exhibiting an unsustainable level of risk, the financial regulation regime allows for specific discretionary licence conditions, which we discussed when debating part 3 of the Bill, to be put on clubs. Those conditions can relate to debt management, liquidity requirements and restricting the club’s overall expenditure. This is a far more proportionate approach to managing the risk of insolvency, rather than requiring owners to hold money that could be invested into the club to be used by default. This is likely to impact on levels of investment in the game. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Youth and community projects: duty on the IFR
“(1) The IFR must take steps to encourage regulated clubs to invest in youth and community projects.
(2) The IFR must, in pursuance of the duty in subsection (1), at least once a year report on the extent to which each regulated club has invested in youth and community projects.”—(Mr Dillon.)
This new clause requires the Independent Football Regulator to take steps to encourage clubs to invest in youth and community projects, including through annual publication of a progress report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Many clubs already have excellent community outreach programmes and foundations with which they support their local communities. This is a simple new clause that just seeks the regulator’s ability to report on those involvements. I suspect that it would not push any existing club into having to engage, because I believe that they already engage with their communities. It is more about capturing that and selling to the wider public the benefits from the investment that football clubs make in their communities.
Stephanie Peacock
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. Football clubs are instrumental in fostering more active and resilient communities. By harnessing the power of sport, this community outreach work promotes social cohesion, improves public health and makes a positive impact on people’s lives. The Government recognise and support the contributions of many clubs in helping to strengthen communities and get more people active, in line with the Government’s own priorities.
That is why we made an amendment to corporate governance provisions in the other place. This addition was explicitly to include a club’s contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the local community within the definition of corporate governance in the Bill, and so require clubs to report on these contributions as part of the corporate governance statement. This reflects that football clubs are more important to their communities than a typical local business. This reporting could include, for example, whether a club has invested in youth and community projects, and we would expect any club that does so to report on it as part of its corporate governance statement.
I am afraid that I disagree the regulator should be required to encourage a specific type of community investment. As we discussed when debating schedule 5, the Bill is deliberately not prescriptive when it comes to corporate governance. That gives the regulator flexibility to write its code in consultation with the industry, and it gives clubs flexibility to explain how they are applying that code. This is about encouraging best practice and greater transparency around the operations and activities of the club. This should steer all clubs toward better governance, without micro-managing how they are operated.
As we have been clear, the regulator cannot start mandating specific changes to a club’s corporate governance, such as quotas for board members. The same applies to community outreach. Of course, we recognise that it is important and should be encouraged, but we do not believe that it is appropriate to encourage a specific, prescriptive type of community action that all clubs should undertake. That is not in line with the approach that the Bill takes to corporate governance, and would not be in line with the light-touch approach to regulation that we all want to see. That is not to take away from the huge contribution that clubs make, and I take this as an opportunity once again to pay tribute to the Barnsley FC Community Trust.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for her response, and welcome the recognition of clubs’ community work in the governance statements. The new clause would add a requirement around youth because, whether on literacy or childhood obesity, football clubs have a unique power to engage young people through their very presence as a shining example to look up to. However, I accept the Minister’s remarks, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Stephanie Peacock
On a point of order, Mr Turner. I thank all the Chairs who have presided over this Committee; as always, I am thankful for your guidance and support throughout the sittings. I thank all those who have contributed their views on the Bill, both in this iteration and the version that the previous Government introduced. A number of important stakeholders—players, clubs and many more—have shared their views and enabled us to bring forward the Bill that we see today. In particular, I thank the Premier League, the EFL, the National League, football clubs across the country and the Football Supporters’ Association. Their engagement has been vital, and I am grateful to them for working productively to ensure that the Bill takes steps towards a future where football can be enjoyed for generations to come.
I pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, whose brilliant work on the fan-led review of football led to the introduction of the Bill. Her work and expertise have been invaluable, and I thank her for her dedication to making the game fairer. I also pay tribute to the officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have been working often very long hours on the preparations for Committee stage; I am grateful for all their help. I pay particular tribute to Adam, Ellen, Charlotte, Kaz, Lucy, Robbie, Conor, Matt, Beth, Leah, Kyle, Lewis, Comfort and Callum for their hard work on the Bill. I also thank those in my private office in the Department for their work to support me in taking the Bill through Committee as the Minister. My particular thanks go to Chris McAlister for all his work on this; the head of my office, Matthew Phillips; and of course Helen Elston. I also thank my parliamentary office, Millie, Karen and Anna, who supported me in opposition, when I was in the shadow Minister’s place.
I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions. It has been excellent to see such strong feeling in the debate. I know that Members have aimed to represent fans and their constituencies in the best possible way. I thank the Committee for such a lively and thoughtful debate throughout the sittings. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham North for keeping us all in check and on time; my opposite number, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup; and the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I also pay tribute to House officials, and thank them for their work to support us as elected representatives. The work that they do in this place is invaluable and I, like I am sure many other hon. Members, are incredibly grateful.
It has been an excellent debate, and I am proud that the Government have delivered on our manifesto commitment by finally bringing in the Bill. I conclude by quoting Dame Tracey Crouch’s last contribution in Committee. She spoke of
“the people who just go and watch the game because they love it and it is important to them deep inside their soul.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 246.]
It is for those people who love the game that we have proposed these measures. I believe that the Bill introduces much-needed changes that will protect football so that they can continue to enjoy it for generations to come. That is what we have delivered today.
The Chair
I, too, thank Dame Tracey Crouch for the work that she did in this House. I also thank His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Lib Dems for the constructive way in which this issue has been debated. I thank the learned Clerks for the help that they have given me, and all officials, including our wonderful Doorkeeper.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Mental Health Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
As it is quite warm, any hon. Member who wishes to remove their jacket may do so.
Clause 24
Nominated person
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 54, in schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Where the patient has not attained the age of 16 years, a nominated person must have parental responsibility for the patient.”
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.
Amendment 55, in schedule 2, page 80, line 13, after “2(2))” insert
“, has parental responsibility for the patient (see paragraph 2(3))”.
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Schedule 2 stand part.
Clauses 25 to 28 stand part.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 24 to 28, schedule 2, and the vital amendments 54 and 55 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). Together, those provisions form a crucial pillar of the Bill, which must modernise our framework for the 21st century while not forgetting one of the oldest truths in our social contract: that parents, not the state, bear the first and deepest duty to protect their children.
The Bill will reform an Act that has stood in various forms since 1983, and which was itself built on a much older legacy of how this country balances individual liberty with the need, in rare cases, to deprive someone of that liberty for the sake of that person’s safety, or the safety of others. For decades, that balancing act has been shaped by the so-called “nearest relative” rule. However well intentioned that rule was, it has often failed to serve the people it is meant to protect. Patients have found themselves legally represented by estranged parents, distant cousins or an ex-spouse with whom they have had no contact for years. In the worst cases, that has compounded trauma and undermined recovery. Clause 24 will address that problem by giving patients the power to appoint a “nominated person” of their choosing: someone whom they trust, who understands their needs, and who can speak up when they themselves cannot. That is, quite simply, the right approach for modern mental health care. It is grounded in autonomy, and respect for the individual’s right to shape their own care and safeguard their own dignity.
Good principles must be matched by good machinery. That is why schedule 2 is not a mere administrative detail, but the backbone of this reform. It sets out, step by step, how a nomination is made, who may be nominated, how conflicts are avoided, and how mistakes are corrected. Under part 1 of schedule 2, a patient must make the appointment in writing. It must be signed and witnessed by
“a health or care professional or independent mental health advocate”.
That is a safeguard against casual or coerced choices. The nominated person must themselves consent: they are not a passive bystander but an active participant. If the relationship breaks down, the patient may revoke the nomination, or the nominated person may resign. Crucially, the county court may step in to remove or bar a nominated person if that person acts unreasonably, abuses their power, or is clearly unsuitable.
Part 2 of proposed new schedule A1 to the Mental Health Act 1983, inserted by schedule 2 to the Bill, addresses an issue that we must take seriously: capacity. Not every patient will have the capacity to make the appointment at the moment it matters most. The proposed new schedule therefore provides a fall-back system. A court may appoint a nominated person on the patient’s behalf, or a default can be determined under criteria set by regulation. The court again retains ultimate oversight to resolve disputes or replace a default, if the circumstances require it. It is thoughtful, practical and rights-based lawmaking, and I commend the drafters for getting the balance broadly right.
Clauses 25 to 28 will give the nominated person real power. They are not a figurehead. Clause 25 demands that professionals consult the nominated person before applying for detention or guardianship. If the nominated person objects, the professional must provide a report showing why detention is none the less necessary, with a clear risk-based justification. The nominated person can then challenge that decision. Clause 26 shortens the duration of the bar on discharge requests from six months to three. If a nominated person believes that the person no longer needs to be detained, they can press for release sooner and more effectively than before.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Without wanting to sound abrupt, we all have the explanatory notes and are reading them, so in the interests of brevity might the hon. Member consider getting to the point about what he would add to or take away from the Bill? We all know what the clauses aim to do; the Minister has already set that out.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but I shall continue in the same vein unless I am told to do otherwise.
Clause 27 will ensure that when community treatment orders are considered, with all the restrictions they bring, the nominated person’s voice must be heard and an objection must be properly countered with evidence. Clause 28 addresses hospital transfers, recognising that being moved to another hospital can uproot fragile support networks and compound distress. By embedding a consultation duty here, too, the Bill will make it harder for patients to be moved arbitrarily or without explanation.
In summary, the clauses and the schedule empower patients, embed transparency and build trust, but they do so through a lens rightly focused on adults—capable, consenting adults who make choices freely. That brings me to my fundamental point: we must be absolutely certain that this approach will not inadvertently erode a bedrock of child protection: that a parent is the default legal protector for their child. For an adult, autonomy means freedom of choice, but for a child, especially one under 16, autonomy must never mean being left alone to navigate a labyrinth of legal forms and healthcare powers without the protection of a parent. That is why I strongly support amendments 54 and 55, which would ensure that for under-16s, parents remain the lawful decision makers and the first safeguard for their child’s welfare.
Let us imagine for a moment a vulnerable 14-year-old who, in the confusion and fear of a psychiatric admission, is persuaded by a well-meaning adult—or, worse, someone with a hidden agenda—to appoint them as the nominated person. That child may be separated from their parents—the very people who know the child best and have a legal duty to care for them—while an outsider gains rights to object to treatment or discharge decisions. Once that nomination is made and witnessed, it carries weight in law and could marginalise the very people who brought that child into the world and have a moral and legal duty to protect them.
This is not just theoretical. We know from real cases in family courts that unscrupulous individuals can exploit vulnerable young people. The risk that the new system could unintentionally open the door to manipulation must be taken seriously. Let us not be naive about how exploitation works: groomers, traffickers and abusers thrive in grey areas of the law; they will find loopholes and drive a coach and horses through them. If we do not make it crystal clear that no child under 16 can override parental responsibility without a court’s explicit order, we risk creating an invitation for abuse.
Can the Minister assure the Committee that no child under 16 will be permitted to override parental responsibility simply by nominating someone else without a full and proper process? Schedule 2 does include fall-back arrangements and eligibility checks, and those are welcome, but unless the law is explicit that only a court can displace a parent’s right to act for their child, those safeguards are not watertight.
Amendment 54 addresses a related area, the notification of incidents. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether the law should be strengthened so that all admissions of children and young people for mental health treatment trigger mandatory incident reporting, and whether the timeframes for that reporting are still appropriate. It would require the Secretary of State to review whether incident reporting requirements are robust enough for all under-18s in mental health settings. Are all incidents of restraint, seclusion, injury or absconding being reported promptly and comprehensively? If not, what must change?
We have seen far too many tragic cases in which harm or abuse in children’s mental health units came to light only after a scandal broke, because the system did not catch it in time. Proper oversight is not an optional extra; it is essential for the trust of families. In my view, a review alone is not enough, so I urge to the Minister to confirm that, if the review finds gaps, the Government will legislate swiftly to close them. In the meantime, what interim steps will be taken to ensure that no child is left unprotected?
Amendment 55 is the final safeguard in this suite of amendments. It would allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to other laws to implement the Bill cleanly. That is good housekeeping, but it must not become a blank cheque. When it comes to parental rights or child safeguarding, no technical tweak should be done behind closed doors by negative procedure; Parliament must approve it in full daylight, on the record. Will the Minister confirm without ambiguity that any consequential amendment that touches on parental powers or child protections will come before both Houses under the affirmative procedure?
To illustrate things in the starkest terms, let me paint one more scenario for this Committee. A 15-year-old girl, already vulnerable, is detained following a self-harm incident. Her parents, distressed but committed, wish to be involved in her care plan and discharge, but in her fragile mental state the child is persuaded by an older friend—perhaps well-meaning, perhaps not—to nominate them instead. That friend, now a legally recognised nominated person, blocks discharge, disagrees with treatment and excludes the parents from updates. The clinicians are caught in a legal tangle. The child is caught in the middle, and the parents must fight in court to reclaim their rightful role. As I said before, that is not a theory; it is the sort of real-life pitfall that sloppy drafting can enable. If we see it coming and fail to stop it, we will have failed as legislators.
I wish to be clear that I support clauses 24 to 28 and schedule 2 because they modernise mental health law for adults in a way that is respectful and empowering. I support amendment 54, because it would strengthen transparency and accountability where children’s lives and safety are at stake. I support amendment 55, because it would keep our statute book coherent, but it must never be misused to erode rights by stealth. Above all, I support the amendments because they ensure that the new nominated person system does not inadvertently weaken the oldest and strongest protection we have, which is the legal responsibility of parents to care for their own child.
I urge this Committee to adopt the clauses, the schedule and amendments 54 and 55 as essential guardrails to ensure that what we pass here is not just legally sound, but morally right. Let us modernise this law and strengthen patient voice, but let us never allow a child to lose their parents’ protection by accident or bureaucratic slip. Let us be in no doubt: when the state removes or limits parental rights, it must do so under the strictest scrutiny of a court of law, with evidence tested and the child’s welfare paramount. A signed piece of paper at a bedside should never be enough. That is the dividing line between a humane, modern health system and one that risks creating new injustices in the name of progress.
I ask the Minister again: will the Government enshrine in this Bill or elsewhere that parents are the legal representatives for under-16s unless a court directs otherwise? Will he guarantee rigorous checks to prevent the manipulation of young minds at their most vulnerable? Will he commit that any necessary changes found by the incident review under amendment 54 would be acted on without delay? I commend this package of reforms to the Committee, and I trust that the Government will listen carefully to these warnings and act to make the legislation watertight.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, not least because I understand you have just returned from New Zealand, where you had duties as the Government’s trade envoy. I thought perhaps we should do a haka in your honour to mark it, but you might rule against that.
Stephen Kinnock
I have no comment on that, and we are not going to divide on it either.
Let me address the questions raised in this morning’s debate. First, I was asked how disputes will be resolved when the nominated person and clinicians disagree. Where a specific nominated person, power or right is being used, the nominated person’s decision applies, because these are statutory powers and rights under the Mental Health Act. However, clinicians will have discretion and can overrule a nominated person’s decision, if there is a danger to the patient or others. That will be clarified in the code.
Secondly, I was asked how we will ensure that nominated persons are aware of their powers. In addition to the broader training and familiarisation required alongside the reforms for clinicians, the statutory forms used to appoint a nominated person will set out that the witness should explain the role of the nominated person and make sure that the nominated person and patient understand the powers and requirements of the role. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh raised that point, too.
Thirdly, I was asked whether there is a mechanism to appoint an interim nominated person, and yes, there is. The interim nominated person is the nominated person appointed by an approved mental health professional when a person lacks the competence or capacity to appoint their own nominated person. While the legislation does not refer to the term “interim nominated person”, that in practice is what they are.
A lot of the discussion today has focused on how the provision will apply to children and young people. I understand the concerns raised and the importance of getting this right. In summary, we object to amendments 54 and 55, which would require nominated persons for patients under 16 to have parental responsibility for the child, whether chosen by the child or appointed for them, on the basis that children with the relevant competence should have the ability to choose their own nominated person. That is in line with the recommendations of the independent review, and in keeping with the principles of choice and autonomy and treating the person as an individual. We have put safeguards in place to ensure that their selection is appropriate and to remove anyone who does not exercise those powers in the best interests of the child.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure us that there are powers in schedule 2 for the removal of a nominated person? One of the grounds is that any person engaged in caring for the patient or interested in the patient’s welfare may raise concerns—for example, a parent or other unpaid carer who has information that the nominated person is not acting in the best interests of the patient.
Stephen Kinnock
I can assure my hon. Friend on that. We have safeguards in place both to ensure that the selection is appropriate in the first place and that, if there are behaviours that indicate that the person is not right for the task, they will be removed and their powers taken away.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Can the Minister clarify where these powers are and what they look like? For example, if a 15-year-old decides to appoint someone who is 23—maybe a boyfriend, maybe not—the problem is that once they make that nomination, we are waiting for something to happen. The idea behind the clauses we have been debating, and the use of exceptional circumstances to try to solve this problem, is to ensure that we prevent any problem from happening in the first place. That is the bit I am not clear on. I thought that Government amendments 40 and 41 were possibly intended to address that point, but my worry is that once the person is chosen, we do not know how they will behave. The whole idea is to give parental responsibility first. Could the Minister address where this is in the Bill, or what it looks like in the code? This is the critical bit to get right for children.
Stephen Kinnock
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to spend time shuffling my papers around. If he cares to look at schedule 2, I think he will find it there.
Government amendments 40 and 41 have been tabled because we believe that it is not necessary to specify in legislation which person the parental responsibility the approved mental health professional must appoint as nominated person for an under-16-year-old. We have committed to clarify this in the code of practice. We have committed to establishing an expert taskforce to support the development of a statutory code of practice to provide clear guidance for professionals involved in the nominated person appointment process.
The fourth question was whether we need parental responsibility by default. The current nearest relative provision assigns an automatic relative according to a hierarchical list, which does not reflect modern family structures. For instance, step-parents and parents who live abroad are not included. That can mean that children and young people may have a nearest relative who can make decisions about their care but who may not know the child well or engage with the role, or who could even be a risk to them. Without formal care proceedings, the child would be left to be represented by a relative who will not act in their best interests.
Fifthly, questions were raised about how to ensure that young patients are not isolated from family support if needed. Engagement with children and young people suggests that they are most likely to appoint their parent as a nominated person. If they appoint someone who is not their parent, then parents could still be involved in their care and treatment where appropriate. Safeguards are in place to allow for the overruling and displacement of the nominated person if they are behaving in a way that is not in the child or young person’s best interests.
Similarly, where a child is under a care order and parental responsibility sits primarily with the local authority, the local authority will retain its parental responsibility for the child even if the child chooses a nominated person who is not the local authority. The code of practice will provide guidance on how practitioners should include those with parental responsibility and care in key processes and decisions.
Sixthly, in cases where there are safeguarding concerns, what safeguards exist to ensure that the nominated person acts in the best interests of the child? The witness will determine whether the child’s nomination is suitable. Clinicians will also have the power to overrule decisions made by a nominated person if they think there is a danger to the patient or to others. The patient, an approved mental health professional, parents and anyone with an interest in the child’s welfare can apply to the court to displace the nominated person if they think they are behaving in a way that is not in the child’s best interests.
Finally, there was a question about how we will ensure that there is no coercion, including in the example involving an older partner. We will provide guidance to the witness on how to check that no coercion has taken place, as well as wider suitability criteria. A nominated person cannot be appointed if coercion or undue pressure has taken place. We intend to state in the code, subject to consultation, that an advocate should be involved early on to provide support to the child or young person throughout the nomination process. Advocates could work with witnesses to ensure that they have the relevant information about the child to make an informed appointment.
I hope that hon. Members are satisfied with those answers and will not press their amendments. I commend Government amendments 40 and 41, clauses 24 to 28 and schedule 2 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Nominated persons
Amendment proposed: 54, in schedule 2, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Where the patient has not attained the age of 16 years, a nominated person must have parental responsibility for the patient.”—(Dr Evans.)
This amendment would stipulate that the nominated person for a patient under 16 must have parental responsibility for the patient.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 87, line 13, at end insert—
“(18A) In section 130B (arrangements in relation to independent mental advocates: England), after subsection (3)(d), insert—
‘(e) support the patient’s carer and family members to prepare for the patient’s discharge from hospital treatment, and
(f) support the patient to access help with social and financial stressors that might otherwise increase their likelihood of future detention.’”
This amendment extends the support offered by Mental Health advocates to cover social and financial stressors and support for family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I jumped the gun this morning, so I have already spoken in detail about the amazing initiative at Melbury Lodge with Winchester Citizens Advice. I will not bore the Committee with the details again, except to say that it is a brilliant example not only of delivering really good care for patients, but of a really good cost-effective intervention for the taxpayer. If it is not appropriate for it to be set out in secondary or primary legislation, will the Minister consider a meeting with me, Melbury Lodge and Winchester Citizens Advice to discuss how this type of initiative could be rolled out across the country?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to make some brief comments on amendment 49.
I am sympathetic to aims of the hon. Member for Winchester in tabling the amendment. A patient who is being discharged from hospital may indeed require specific, targeted support. The overall success of their treatment and continued recovery can be greatly enhanced where the right structures are in place to support them in the community. The amendment rightly draws attention to social and financial stressors that may affect an individual at the point of discharge and in the weeks and months that follow. We all recognise that there is a pressing need for a more joined-up approach between in-patient services and community provision. Without that, we risk patients falling through the cracks and suffering unnecessary and distressing re-admissions. Better discharge planning must be at the heart of our efforts.
I have some concerns, however. Although I acknowledge the good intentions behind the amendment, it risks expanding the remit of independent mental health advocates beyond what might be appropriate. There is a delicate balance, but an important distinction, between advocacy and care co-ordination. Independent mental health advocates play a vital role, and it is essential that their independence and clarity of purpose be preserved. If we are not careful, we risk blurring that boundary. In doing so, we may undermine the very effectiveness of the independent mental health advocate in fulfilling their primary function.
The role of an IMHA is to support patients in understanding and exercising their rights under the Mental Health Act. They may already be involved in supporting an individual to prepare for discharge, including by contributing to plans for ongoing care and support. The amendment would significantly increase the breadth of that role and might shift the focus away from the core purpose of advocacy.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a pressing point. Does she agree that if the amendment is accepted, there will be a requirement for additional training to deal with financial and social support, which goes outside the current scope of these important advocates?
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is not a simple or straightforward addition; it would require potentially substantial training. We would not want somebody in a role that they were not adequately prepared for. With any amendment, we would need to ensure that training, and the time and expense of it, had been factored in.
Even with the best intentions, the success of any extended support role, such as that envisaged in the amendment, will ultimately rely on the availability and integration of local services. Where appropriate services are in place and are working well together, advocates can play a valuable role in signposting and supporting access. Rather than placing additional responsibilities on the IMHA, our focus should be on working with community providers to ensure that the necessary support, particularly for social and financial needs, is consistently available and is effectively joined up across the system.
Having said that, I recognise and welcome the emphasis placed by the hon. Member for Winchester on the role of carers and family members. Too often, they are overlooked in discharge planning, yet their involvement can make a critical difference to a patient’s successful transition from hospital to home. When carers feel informed, supported and prepared, it gives patients the reassurance and stability that they need to continue their recovery with confidence. The primary responsibility of the independent mental health advocate, however, must remain their responsibility to the patient. I am concerned that the drafting of the amendment could create ambiguity about who the IMHA is principally there to support.
Financial stress is undoubtedly a real and urgent concern. Mental ill health can severely affect an individual’s capacity to work, to manage their finances or even to engage with systems of support. Equally, financial instability can exacerbate mental health difficulties. Those are serious challenges that must be addressed, but I would question whether the IMHA is the right professional to take on that role directly. Instead, we should ensure that they are well placed to refer individuals to appropriate services without assuming responsibility for co-ordinating that support themselves.
Gregory Stafford
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Winchester will press his amendment to a vote, but if he does, would my hon. Friend support the idea of having a pilot roll-out of the system before we go the whole hog, because of all the potential problems that she has highlighted?
Aphra Brandreth
That is an important point. These are quite substantial changes, and we do not know the full impact that they would have on the system. We have talked about issues such as whether there is sufficient training for advocates and a joined-up approach with what is happening in the community. A pilot would provide the opportunity to see where it is working and where there might be things that need to be changed or considered. It would certainly be a sensible approach. We all want to ensure that we are supporting individuals to be discharged in a safe way that minimises the likelihood of their being readmitted, but we need to do so without overcomplicating the roles and the system that are currently in place.
I commend the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing these important issues to the attention of the Committee. His amendment raises legitimate and timely concerns around the support offered to individuals leaving hospital, as well as the wider context in which recovery takes place. I hope that I have been able to offer some reflections that will assist hon. Members in considering the matter further.
Dr Evans
This morning, we touched on amendment 49, so I will not repeat my remarks. I will simply ask a pithy question of the hon. Member for Winchester. He rightly talked about the incredible work that his local citizens advice bureau carries out. How will the amendment blur the lines between social workers, caseworkers and the independent advocates who are already doing this work? How does he perceive that working? I worry about the complexity that it would create. I would be grateful if the hon. Member addressed that point.
Stephen Kinnock
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for bringing this issue before the Committee. The intention of his amendment is to extend the support offered by independent mental health advocates
“to cover social and financial stressors and support for family carers and other members of the household when the patient is discharged.”
It would amend paragraph 18 of schedule 2, which deals with amendments relating to nominated persons. It should more properly be inserted into schedule 3, which deals with independent mental health advocates.
The Bill will already extend the support that advocates can provide to help patients to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment, to be able to make a complaint and to be provided with information about other available services. Those other services could include support following discharge from statutory or voluntary organisations, which may cover social and financial issues, and help to support carers. Those organisations would be better placed to support patients with these specific needs, rather than independent mental health advocates, whose skillset is specific to supporting patients to understand their rights under the Mental Health Act and participate in decisions about their care and treatment. We will consult on guidance in the code of practice to help independent mental health advocates to understand their extended role.
In addition to policy regarding independent mental health advocacy, advance choice documents give individuals the chance to give instructions about practical aspects of their life. Examples of such aspects include domestic, financial or caring responsibilities, such as children or pets. This provision allows the individual to be looked after when unwell and aims to ease additional anxieties. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Winchester to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate the valid points that hon. Members have made. The point about running a pilot was a sensible suggestion. We have had something that could be viewed as a pilot in Winchester for two years. We know that it works well, and every £1 spent on it saves £14.08. If I have suggested this amendment in the wrong part of the Bill through my naivety and inexperience, or if mental health advocates are not the right people to deliver a solution that we know works, may I ask the Minister whether there is a more appropriate part of the Bill in which to include it or another way to implement this proven system, such as by amending a different Bill, before I decide whether to press the amendment to a vote?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Fundamentally, our view is that the role that he is proposing is not the right one for an independent mental health advocate. The role of an independent mental health advocate is to work with the patient around their legal rights, rather than to deal with some of the more practical issues that he is talking about here. Our sense is that there are both statutory and voluntary organisations who are better placed to carry out that work. I do not think that a pilot would work with IMHAs, because by definition that is not the right role for IMHAs.
Dr Chambers
In that case, can we have a discussion outside the Committee about how to do this?
Dr Chambers
indicated assent.
Amendment 49 negatived.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
Detention periods
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Currently, under the Mental Health Act, a person detained for treatment can be kept in hospital initially for six months before the responsible clinician must make an assessment to decide whether to continue their detention or to discharge them. The independent review raised concerns that six months is too long. It heard evidence that patients were sometimes detained longer than necessary and were only considered for discharge when a tribunal hearing was due. It found that in up to 17% of cases referred to the mental health tribunal, discharge happened in the 48 hours before the hearing. That suggests that some patients are being detained longer than is necessary.
The review recommended reducing from six months to three months the initial detention period for people admitted for treatment, so that a patient’s detention is reviewed sooner to ensure that patients are not detained when they are no longer benefiting from treatment and can be safely discharged.
Clause 29 will mean that patients detained for treatment have their detention reviewed three times—up from twice—in the first year: at three, six and twelve months from the date of detention. The new renewal periods will not apply to part III patients, except in very specific circumstances when an unrestricted patient changes status. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
I have some brief questions for the Minister about this important clause, which has serious implications for patient liberty and for public protection. We must ensure that decisions are clinically and legally sound. First, how will the proposed changes to initial and renewal detention periods help conditions and services and manage public risk more effectively, particularly in forensic or high-risk cases? Secondly, do longer detention periods after revocation of a community treatment order reflect a higher perceived risk, and if so, is there clear clinical evidence supporting that extension to six months? Thirdly, are we confident that the new timelines strike the right balance between protecting the public and ensuring patients are not detained longer than necessary? Finally, and as an adjunct to that, what other considerations are there in the clause or the Bill to keep the public safe and to make sure that decisions are correct in the context of clause 29?
Dr Evans
Clause 29 addresses the length and renewal of detention periods under the Mental Health Act. I begin by acknowledging the important step that this clause represents in shifting towards a more rights-based, patient-centred model, as enshrined in the Bill.
Clause 29 would shorten the initial period of detention for treatment under section 3 of the Mental Health Act from six months to three months. Subsequent renewal periods are, likewise, reduced from six months to three months and then from one year to six months. This is clearly informed by the principle of least restriction, as is rightly highlighted in the explanatory notes in paragraph 212.
On that basis, we welcome the direction of travel, but, while we agree with the principle of moving towards shorter, more proportionate detention periods, we have questions and concerns about implementation, consistency and safeguards, which I hope the Minister will address.
First, will shorter periods lead to better outcomes, or just more paperwork? The goal here is to ensure that detention is not allowed to drift and that patients are not held in hospital for longer than is necessary without rigorous justification. However, the clause still allows for indefinite renewal in increments, once those shorter initial periods expire. Can the Minister assure us that these changes will result in more meaningful reviews and not just more frequent rubber-stamping of detention? It would be helpful to understand whether the Government have assessed the clinical capacity, particularly among responsible clinicians and approved mental health professionals, to conduct these reviews with real rigour. If not resourced properly, we risk replacing one form of inertia with another.
Secondly, what safeguards exist against the resetting of detention periods on transfer? I am by no means a legal expert, so forgive me if I have completely misinterpreted this, and I bow to the legal expertise of the Minister, the Government and, most importantly, to able staff in the Box. However, clause 29(2) introduces into section 19 of the Mental Health Act new subsection (2A), which provides that if a guardianship patient is transferred to hospital, they will be treated as if they had been admitted on the day of transfer. In practical terms, does that not reset the detention clock?
To my eyes, this concept of resetting the detention clock appears most clearly in subsections (2) and 29(5)(d) of clause 29, where a patient who is transferred from guardianship to hospital, or who has their community treatment order revoked, is treated as if they had been newly admitted to hospital on that day. This effectively resets the start date of the detention period. Clause 29(2), which will insert proposed new section 19(2A) into the Mental Health Act, states:
“But, in the case of a patient falling within subsection (2)(d), section 20 has effect as if the patient has been admitted to hospital in pursuance of an application for admission for treatment on the day on which the patient is transferred.”
New paragraph 5B of schedule 1 to the Mental Health Act states that the modifications
“apply in relation to a patient transferred from guardianship to a hospital in pursuance of regulations made under section 19…In section 20(1)(a)…for “admitted”…there is to be substituted “transferred”.
In new paragraphs 5C and 5D of that schedule, the same resetting principle applies to patients whose CTOs are revoked, with renewal detention starting from the date of revocation, not from their original hospital admission or order.
In practice, this could mean that if a patient is placed under guardianship on 1 January and transferred to hospital on 1 April under section 19(2)(d) of the Mental Health Act, then under proposed new section 19(2A), they would be treated as if they had been newly admitted on 1 April. Therefore, even though they have been under compulsion since 1 January, the new three-month detention clock begins on 1 April. Likewise, a patient under a community treatment order that was issued on 1 February and revoked on 1 August will, under paragraph 5D, start a new in-patient detention period on 1 August, not 1 February.
On one hand, that makes sense. We do not want people whose state is fluctuating to be released, or simply to time out. On the other hand, if we are looking purely from the patient’s perspective, as the legislation asks us to do, with regard to the principles in clause 1, that could be a problem. Will the Minister clarify how many times such a reset could occur for a single individual? Is there any form of oversight, review or reporting requirement where this happens? That mechanism might be necessary in some clinical contexts, but without safeguards it could become a back door to prolonging detention, which is something that the clause seeks to reduce. Is there some kind of register or mandatory recording of these incidents to spot repeat patterns?
Thirdly, another issue that needs addressing is the creation of possible complexity. Paragraphs 218 and 219 of the explanatory notes set out a separate but equally important issue. Clause 29’s welcome shortening of detention periods—from three months to start with, then three months, then six months, then annual reviews—is not applied evenly to patient groups. Who gets the shorter periods? Most civil patients detained under part II and some patients on revoked community treatment orders. Who does not get them? Patients detained by a hospital order from a court, if their CTO is revoked within six months of the order, as in paragraph 218. And, of course, restricted patients—typically those involved in more serious offences.
Stephen Kinnock
The aim of the clause is to ensure that a patient’s detention is reviewed sooner. The planned reforms will not change the fundamental power and purpose of the Act, which is to detain and treat people when they are so unwell that they become a risk to themselves or others. Where a patient continues to meet the criteria, their detention will be renewed.
Opposition Members have asked about extra paperwork and workload in general for both clinicians and tribunals. In the impact assessment that we published alongside the Bill, we set out the estimated costs and benefits of the reforms and the expected workforce requirements that are critical to our implementation planning. That includes consideration of the impact on clinicians of additional detention reviews, which we have calculated is estimated to be around four hours of additional workload by the clinician for each patient who is detained beyond three months.
On the clinical evidence for shortening the detention period, in the independent review we found that in 17% of cases referred to the mental health tribunal, discharge happened in the 48 hours before the hearing, which strongly suggests that some patients are being detained for longer than is necessary.
Stephen Kinnock
I did not catch the question to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. Could he repeat it, please?
Dr Evans
The issue is about resetting. As the legislation is written, it would suggest that because people are moving from one place to another, the clock resets. Clinically, that could make sense, but part of the problem is that every time the clock resets, so does the person’s detention. That is a key part. Fundamentally, in this clause we are trying to stop people being detained when they do not need to be. In fact, the Minister has just said that 17% of people were discharged before the tribunal could happen. The question is around specifying, when it comes to admission and transfer, that the clock resets. What safeguards do we have to make sure that we are counting the number of times it is reset, that it is clinically appropriate and, most importantly, that we are not substituting one way of dealing with this with a back-door way of creating a reset motion?
Stephen Kinnock
I am struggling a little to understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. I pointed out in my opening remarks that the review clearly recommended reducing the initial detention period for people admitted for treatment from six months to three months, so that a patient’s detention is reviewed sooner to ensure patients are not detained when they are no longer benefiting from treatment and can be safely discharged. The clause means that patients detained for treatment will have their detention reviewed three times in the first year: at three, six and 12 months from the date of detention—up from two, as it was previously. I do not think that there is any implication that it is resetting the detention; it is just a rolling set of reviews.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I will not tolerate any further speaking outside the structure. It is the second time that it has happened this afternoon, and I will not tolerate it any further.
Clause 30
Periods for tribunal applications
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 30 will introduce important reforms to the tribunal process by adjusting the timeframes for when patients can apply to the tribunal regarding their detention. Section 2 patients will now have 21 days rather than the current 14 to apply. This reform addresses concerns that patients in crisis often need more time to fully understand their rights, access legal advice and make an application.
For section 3 patients and transferred guardianship patients, clause 30 will reduce the initial application period from six months to three months. This aligns the application period with the new, shorter initial detention period of three months, reduced from six months, for these patients. This change maintains the current rights for these patients to make an application once during each successive period of detention.
For conditionally discharged restricted patients, clause 30 provides different application periods. These vary depending on whether the patient has been conditionally discharged with or without conditions that amount to a deprivation of liberty. Conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions—also known as patients on a supervised discharge—can make an application to the tribunal sooner, between six months and 12 months from the date that they become subject to said conditions, and thereafter every two years. In contrast, conditionally discharged restricted patients who are not subject to deprivation of liberty conditions will have application periods between 12 months and two years, and thereafter every two years.
The different application periods reflect the need to consider a patient’s detention more frequently and earlier where more restrictive deprivation of liberty conditions are present. These changes improve access to the tribunal, ensuring greater protection for some of society’s most vulnerable individuals.
Clause 31 will strengthen the system of automatic referrals to the tribunal for patients detained under the Mental Health Act. It ensures that patients who may not be able to make an application to the tribunal themselves are still afforded regular judicial oversight. For patients detained under section 2, this clause reduces the automatic referral period from six months to three months. This improves the current safeguard by bringing the trigger for the automatic referral sooner. This will apply when a section 2 patient’s detention has been extended beyond 28 days and no application or referral has been made to the tribunal for review of the patient’s detention.
The clause will also improve the automatic referrals for patients detained under section 3. It does this by triggering referrals on the expiry of three months and 12 months and annually thereafter, where the tribunal has not considered the patient’s case. Additionally, this clause removes the automatic referral trigger on revocation of a community treatment order. It was found in practice that the automatic referral was an ineffective safeguard, as often the patient either was back in the community and subject to a new CTO or had reverted to being a section 3 patient before the tribunal reviewed their case. Now, where a patient’s CTO is revoked, they will be automatically referred at three months and 12 months after revocation, and then every subsequent 12 months. This allows the automatic referral periods to apply afresh from the date on which the CTO is revoked.
The clause will ensure that patients detained under the Mental Health Act are subject to regular and timely tribunal reviews, particularly when they are unable to advocate for themselves.
Clause 32 will deliver important tribunal oversight for the small cohort of restricted patients discharged into the community under conditions that amount to a deprivation of liberty, who are also known as supervised discharge patients. The clause will require patients subject to supervised discharge to be referred initially at 12 months after deprivation of liberty conditions are imposed, followed by a further referral every two years, where the patient’s case has not been heard by the tribunal in this period. The clause will also provide a safeguard for patients who may fluctuate between conditional and supervised discharge, to ensure that no supervised discharge patient will go more than four years without their case being considered by the tribunal. Automatic referrals to the tribunal ensure that patients under some of the most restrictive conditions have routine oversight of their detention where independent review would otherwise be absent.
The clause will also clarify the powers of the tribunal when considering the application or reference of a conditionally discharged patient, which include the power for the tribunal to impose conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty. Deprivation of liberty conditions may be imposed or retained only where the tribunal is satisfied that they are necessary to protect another person from serious harm and are no less beneficial to the patient than a recall to hospital. This test preserves public protection, while enhancing the safeguards in place for conditionally discharged patients, ensuring that their care and liberty are subject to regular independent scrutiny.
Together, these changes will promote a more robust system of oversight for patients subject to long-term detention and restrictive conditions, ensuring that their rights are respected and their detention is regularly reviewed.
Clause 33 will extend the same principles of regular, proportionate scrutiny to restricted patients who are not conditionally discharged subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. For restricted patients detained in hospital, section 71 will be amended to reduce the automatic referral period from three years to one year. That amendment aligns with the amendments to increase the frequency of automatic referrals introduced in the Bill for part II patients. Through annual tribunal reviews, it is intended that those individuals are safeguarded against inappropriate detention. That aligns with the broader principles of fairness and accountability, ensuring that individuals in long-term detention are subject to appropriate judicial oversight.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak on clauses 30 to 33, which go to the core of the rights architecture that surrounds mental health law in this country—namely, the oversight and challenge mechanisms available to individuals subject to detention, supervision or conditional discharge. I think we are all aware that the 1983 Act, although fit for its time, has failed to keep pace with the evolving understanding of mental health illness and modern expectations of legal accountability or procedural fairness. The clauses, although technical in nature, seek to rectify a number of the long-standing shortcomings in the operation of the mental health tribunal system.
Clause 30 will extend and clarify the time period within which patients may apply to tribunals. Essentially, it will do two things. First, it will extend the application window for section 2 patients—those detained for assessment—from 14 to 21 days. Secondly, it will reduce the initial waiting period for section 3 patients and those under guardianship from six months to three months. Those are sensible and overdue changes, because 14 days is a narrow window for any legal action, let alone one initiated by an individual who may be experiencing acute psychological distress.
Extending the application window to 21 days provides a fairer opportunity to seek representation and prepare a meaningful application. Equally, the reduction of the initial period for section 3 and guardianship patients to three months offers an important safeguard against prolonged detention without scrutiny. It restores a measure of clarity between the gravity of the detention order and the speed with which it may be challenged.
The clause will also clarify the rights of conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions—that is, those who are discharged from hospital but required to comply with supervisional residence requirements that are so restrictive that they cross the legal threshold for a deprivation of liberty. At present, those individuals occupy a legal grey zone: they are not formally detained, yet the liberty they enjoy is so curtailed that it raises significant questions as to their article 5 rights. Clause 30 will properly address that anomaly by creating a defined, regular route of appeal, initially between six and 12 months from the imposition of the deprivation of liberty conditions, and biannually thereafter. Those are measured and proportionate changes that enhance access to justice, improve compliance with human rights obligations and restore clarity to a field that has suffered, at times, from legal opacity.
The reforms are not without consequences. A wider cohort of eligible applicants and more frequent review periods will inevitably increase the burden on the tribunal service, on legal aid provision and on clinical teams who must prepare documents and attend hearings. That challenge is not to be dismissed lightly.
Gregory Stafford
Does my gallant and learned hon. Friend have any information on the current waiting times for tribunals? What does he expect the effect of the changes proposed in these clauses to be on waiting times?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We all know, from our casework or personal experiences outside of this place, about the pressures on the Courts and Tribunals Service. Mental health tribunals are not exempt from that pressure. Changing the timeframe on which tribunals operate, and the frequency with which reviews take place, will inevitably increase the burden on the service. Therefore, although these changes are broadly welcome, it is important that we are cognisant of their impact on the resources that will be required, the number of judges and wing members that will be needed, and of course the hard standing of the court and tribunal infrastructure that will need to be made available. Other issues, such as those around the digitalisation of the service, will also need to be addressed.
Clause 31 will recast the regime for automatic tribunal referrals, replacing the prior six-month structure with the concept of “a relevant period”. For detained patients, referrals will now occur at three months, then 12 months, and annually thereafter. For community patients, they will occur at six months, then 12 months, then annually. Most significantly, hospital managers will be under a new duty to refer a case when no review has occurred in 12 months, regardless of whether an application has been made. That is a sound reform.
The clause will introduce coherence to a previously fragmented system, and establishes a minimum standard of legal oversight. The inclusion of a backstop provision—that no individual should go more than 12 months without review—is essential. In a system in which patients may not always have the means or capacity to apply for a review themselves, it offers a critical safety net. Clause 31 will also repeal section 68A of the 1983 Act, which has become unwieldy and duplicative. By streamlining the referral process, the Bill enhances legal clarity and administrative efficiency, but I would caution that the increased complexity of the new timeframes may require significant training of those responsible for their implementation.
Clause 32 will provide for restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It goes further than clause 30 by imposing mandatory referral duties on the Secretary of State. Under the clause, a tribunal must be convened after 12 months, every two years thereafter, and at four years if no review has occurred. Crucially, the clause also codifies the tribunal’s powers. It may now vary or impose conditions, including those that constitute a deprivation of liberty, provided that they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm and are no more restrictive than hospital detention. That clause introduces a principled, proportionate framework for balancing public protection with patient liberty, and avoids vague or discretionary use of such powers.
Finally, clause 33 will apply the same principles to restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty orders. Such individuals, although under fewer constraints, are none the less subject to significant legal orders. The new requirement for a tribunal review at two years, and every four years thereafter, ensures that oversight is regular and non-discriminatory.
All four clauses are united by a clear objective to rationalise tribunal access, enhance procedural safeguards and bring the Mental Health Act into alignment with modern standards of fairness and proportionality. However, I will close with a caveat: rights without resourcing are hollow. If we are to place greater demand on the tribunals service, and to rely on it as the guardian of liberty for thousands of individuals, it must be adequately funded, staffed and supported. Legal representation must be accessible. Tribunal members must be properly trained. Hospital managers must be equipped to meet their new responsibilities.
With those reservations, I broadly welcome clauses 30 to 33 as a necessary recalibration of our mental health law. They reflect the dignity of the individual, the demands of public safety, and the enduring principle that no one should be deprived of liberty without fair or timely review.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I rise to speak in support of clauses 30 to 33. I echo many of the remarks of the gallant and learned hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, but I will try not to go over too much of the same ground.
These clauses seek to provide clarity and improvement in access to the tribunal process, both for patients detained under the Mental Health Act and for those on conditional discharge, and seek to implement key recommendations from the independent review. Section 66 of the Act is amended to extend the period in which a patient detained under section 2 can apply to the tribunal from 14 days to 21 days. Clause 30 also allows for auto-enrolment in a hearing, reducing that time from six months to three months. It clarifies that conditional discharge patients are included in this package, so they also have the right to have their treatment reviewed at a tribunal. Providing for auto-enrolment simplifies the system for people who, as the hon. Member mentioned, are perhaps not in the best position to make administrative decisions and fill in the paperwork to apply to a tribunal.
Although this framework and these changes are necessary to bring clarity and autonomy back into people’s healthcare, it would be good to hear from the Minister about how we will support patients throughout these processes as we learn about the different timelines. How will we ensure people can access this change in the system and understand what they are entitled to under this new provision?
Dr Evans
Clauses 30 to 33 deal with the tribunal access and automatic referrals of patients detained or conditionally discharged under the Mental Health Act. Let me begin, again, by welcoming these provisions, which seek to improve safeguards, ensure timely oversight, and extend the rights of individuals, particularly those under deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. These are serious matters of liberty and I acknowledge the Government’s intention to modernise and strengthen protection. Nevertheless, it is important that we look carefully at how the clauses operate in practice. I will take each in turn.
Clause 30, on tribunal application periods, will make important changes to when patients can apply for the tribunal. First, it will extend the time that patients detained under section 2 of the Act have to apply from 14 to 21 days. This is a welcome change. We know that the first few days in hospital are incredibly disorientating, so allowing patients a bit more time to seek legal advice is entirely sensible.
Secondly, the clause will reduce the period for patients detained under section 3 to apply from six months to three. I can understand the logic of that, given that clause 29 also shortens the initial detention period, but is there any reason for choosing that mark? Is there any evidence that the three-month window will still allow patients to have sufficient time and support to exercise their rights?
Thirdly, the clause will introduce new provisions for conditionally discharged restricted patients, setting out different application timeframes depending on whether the patient is subject to conditions amounting to deprivation of liberty. Those under the deprivation of liberty safeguards will be able to apply between six and 12 months after discharge and then every two years. For those not under such conditions, the window begins at 12 months. That reflects the impact of conditions on a person’s liberty, and I recognise that distinction, but can the Minister clarify how patients will be informed about which track they are on? That will be fundamental to exerting their rights. Will any guidance be issued to ensure consistency? Will patients have access to advocacy or legal advice at this point?
On clause 31, automatic tribunal referrals are a crucial safety net for those who for whatever reason do not exercise their right to apply. The clause introduces a new framework of relevant periods after which the hospital managers must refer, as we have heard. For section 2 patients, it will be three months. For section 3 and CTO patients it will be three months, then 12 months and every year thereafter. Significantly, the current three-year review period for many detained patients is reduced to one year.
The clause marks a substantial increase in oversight, which I support, but it also raises practical questions. Given that we have put these backstops in place, have the Government made any estimate of how many extra tribunals will be needed and how much extra work they will generate? The Minister was kind enough to say that there were four hours of clinical work involved in doing the plans, but I do not think we have yet heard how much work the Government estimate that the tribunals will take.
More importantly, what support is being provided to ensure that the tribunal system can meet that increased demand? I am particularly concerned that the benefits of these reforms may not be felt if backlogs or delays undermine the safeguards they are intended to deliver.
Gregory Stafford
Does my hon. Friend think that if there is a backlog, that could undermine patient rights or clinical progress in some way? How will the tribunal system be able to cope with that increased workload and meet its legal obligations to provide timely tribunals so that patients get the best care?
Dr Evans
That is a difficult balance to get right. I appreciate that the Government have said that the Bill will take 10 years to implement, but if these measures come into force from day one, we will start to see automatic referrals come through. There will be a lag as the transition happens, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we can foresee scenarios where patients who want to be referred into the tribunal are waiting in inappropriate care places, which may be to the detriment of their personal care and may actually make their recovery worse. He is right to highlight that question, which is why having a broad understanding of how many extra referrals are coming would be useful.
Clause 32 focuses on conditionally discharged restricted patients who are subject to deprivation of liberty conditions. It rightly ensures that those patients are brought within scope of automatic referral, first after 12 months and then every two years. Again, that is a positive step, ensuring that even those not detained in hospital will still have access to a review of their conditions. Crucially, the clause also gives the tribunals the power to vary or remove those DoL conditions.
Can the Minister say more about how that important power will be used? What criteria will the tribunals apply to assess whether a condition is genuinely necessary and proportionate? Will patients be legally represented in those hearings by default? Will another advocate be there, or will it be someone else in their place? Here, too, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister. I hope he will forgive my legal naivety, but my mother always said, “It’s better to ask a dumb question than stay dumb forever.”
The explanatory notes talk about DoL conditions. The current legal framework for authorising the deprivation of liberty for individuals who lack capacity is complex and in transition. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, deprivation of liberty safeguards have been the established mechanism since 2009 to ensure lawful deprivation of liberty in care settings. However, the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 introduced liberty protection safeguards as modernising replacements, designed to simplify and broaden protections.
LPS are widely seen as an improvement to DoLS, because they extend safeguards to a wider range of settings, including hospitals and people’s own homes where deprivation of liberty might occur. They also streamline the assessment process, reducing bureaucratic delays and better reflecting person-centred decision making. The Law Commission and various stakeholder groups have supported LPS as a way to address the significant practical and legal challenges posed by DoLS, including the so-called DoLS backlog, where assessments have been delayed for many vulnerable individuals.
Despite that, I do not believe that LPS have yet been implemented, leaving DoLS still in force. I wonder if we are therefore creating ambiguity as we update the Mental Health Act through the Bill’s clauses, such as those addressing conditional discharge and deprivation of liberty, without clarity on how those will intersect with the forthcoming LPS framework that will be introduced under separate legislation. That raises important questions about the sequencing and co-ordination of legislation reform. How will the Government ensure coherence and avoid conflicting provisions when different statutes address overlapping issues at different times?
Given that context, have the Government abandoned the planned implementation of LPS, or do they remain committed to bringing them into force? If the implementation is still planned, will the Government provide a clear timeline for when LPS will replace DoLS? How do the Government intend to ensure that the provisions we are debating will align with or adapt to the introduction of LPS? What steps are being taken to ensure that vulnerable individuals and professionals who navigate this complex legal landscape will have clear, consistent safeguards and guidance through the transition? Clarification on those points is essential to avoid legal uncertainty and to ensure that the reforms provide coherent protection for those deprived of their liberties.
Clause 33 deals with patients who are not under DoLS conditions. It will ensure that even those who are under DoLS conditions, such as detained restricted patients or conditionally discharged patients with lesser restrictions, receive automatic tribunals. It will reduce the current three-year referral intervention for detained restricted patients to 12 months and introduce automatic referrals for non-DoL conditionality discharge patients after two years and then every four years. Again, that is a step forward, but four years feels like a long gap between reviews for those discharged with conditions that still significantly affect their daily lives. Will the Minister explain the thought behind the chosen timeframe? If a person’s condition changes, is there a mechanism to trigger an early referral outside the normal cycle?
The clauses show progress. They reflect a clear intention to strengthen patients’ rights, increase oversight and address historical injustices, particularly for those living under deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. But with complexity comes risk, and we need to ensure that patients understand their rights and the legal support available. The tribunal system must be properly resourced to uphold the safeguards that we place in the legislation.
Stephen Kinnock
I will try to answer some of the questions. On tribunal capacity, people who are conditionally discharged and those with restrictions that amount to a deprivation of liberty represent only a small fraction of tribunal business—well under 1% of all mental health tribunal cases. The modest increase in hearings is therefore expected to be absorbed within existing capacity, while delivering significant rights benefits to the individuals concerned. It is worth noting, too, that the mental health tribunal continues to perform strongly. Amazingly, it is one of the very few areas of our public services not to be left with a massive backlog by the previous Government. The open caseload has remained stable at approximately 3,700 cases for a decade, despite 31,226 appeals in 2024-25.
I was asked about LPS and replacing DoLS. The previous Government paused the implementation of the liberty protection safeguards; they decided to focus on other priorities. In the absence of LPS, the deprivation of liberty safeguards system will continue to apply. The Department has made it clear that all bodies with legal duties under the DoLS must continue to operate these important safeguards to ensure that the rights of people without the relevant mental capacity are protected.
Stephen Kinnock
We have made it clear that we are going to continue with DoLS. Basically, we have to look at whether replacing them with LPS will achieve the stated objectives of the exercise, and I am not entirely convinced about that. It is under review.
On supporting patients, the independent mental health advocate will ensure that patients are aware of their rights. Throughout the Bill we are ensuring that patients have support by moving to an opt-out model. Additionally, if a patient does not bring a case, they will be referred automatically to the tribunal if a specified period has passed. Patients will be supported in getting tribunal oversight, as the referrals are made by a hospital manager.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Discharge: process
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
The clause seeks to strengthen the protocol on discharging individuals under the Act by introducing a statutory requirement on the person who makes the discharge decision to consult with another. Currently, a patient’s responsible clinician can, in law, unilaterally decide to discharge a hospital in-patient from certain powers of the Act. Under our amendments, they will be required to consult someone else who is professionally concerned with the patient’s treatment, whether that be in the hospital or in the community. Where the responsible clinician is a consultant psychiatrist, the consultee may be a nurse, psychologist or occupational therapist. That is to ensure a more rounded perspective on the patient’s readiness for discharge from the Act.
The clause will introduce a similar protocol for the discharge of people under guardianship, guardianship orders and community treatment orders. For guardianship and guardianship orders, the person who makes the decision to discharge from the powers under the Act may need to consult either the responsible local social services authority or a person’s designated social worker. For patients under a community treatment order, the responsible clinician is required to consult the community clinician, in recognition of the fact that they will likely have a much clearer understanding of the patient’s progress in the community and whether they are ready for discharge under the Act.
Although multidisciplinary-based decisions represent best practice, we know that they are not always taken. The clause seeks to change that by helping to make sure that the decision to discharge is carefully considered and receives greater professional oversight.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to speak to the implications of clause 34 for clinical decision making, patient safety and the operation of the Mental Health Act more broadly. The clause introduces a new requirement for the responsible clinician to consult another professional, from a different professional discipline, who is involved in the patient’s care before they make a decision to discharge a patient from detention or from a community treatment order under section 23 of the Mental Health Act 1983. If the patient is on a community treatment order, the clinician must consult the relevant community clinician.
At its heart, the clause seeks to ensure that decisions about discharge are not taken in isolation. It reflects a wider shift in mental health care towards collaborative, multidisciplinary approaches. We should welcome that in principle. These are often complex decisions that involve vulnerable individuals, and a single viewpoint may not always capture the full clinical picture. By requiring consultation with someone from another discipline, be that a nurse, an occupational therapist or a psychologist, we can help to ensure that decisions are more thoroughly considered and less likely to overlook risks.
The clause provides an important safeguard against premature or inappropriate discharge, particularly in cases where a patient may continue to pose a risk to themselves or others. It builds in a degree of professional scrutiny that supports safer and more consistent practice and, in doing so, should improve confidence among patients, families and practitioners.
I would be grateful if the Minister provided further clarity on a few practical points about how the clause will operate. First, it requires consultation but does not appear to specify whether the consulted clinician must agree with the responsible clinician’s decision in order for discharge to proceed. In cases where there is disagreement between clinicians of different professional backgrounds, what is the expected course of action? Is the responsible clinician ultimately free to proceed, or will there be an escalation mechanism? It would be helpful to understand how differing professional opinions are to be balanced and how potential deadlock is to be managed.
Secondly, although I welcome the intention to improve the rigour of decision making, will the Minister reassure the Committee that the additional consultation requirement will not introduce unnecessary delays into the discharge process? It is, of course, essential to get these decisions right, but it is also important that we do not create new barriers to discharge when a patient is clinically ready to move on. Delays in discharge can have a negative impact on patient outcomes, as well as increasing pressure on services. Although the consultation must be meaningful, it should also be proportionate, timely and clearly understood by all involved.
Will the Minister comment on how the requirement will be implemented in practice? For example, will guidance be issued to support clinicians in understanding their duties under the clause and to ensure consistency across services?
Overall, the clause represents a thoughtful and measured reform. It strengthens patient safety, promotes professional collaboration and introduces a safeguard that is both reasonable and necessary. Notwithstanding the clarifications I have raised, I hope that it will help to ensure that discharge decisions are made with greater confidence and care without becoming unduly bureaucratic.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to clause 34, which inserts new consultation requirements into section 23 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The requirements relate to the discharge of individuals detained under parts II and III of the Act, as well as those subject to community treatment orders or guardianship.
Currently, under the Act, the responsible clinician has the power to discharge patients detained under sections 2 and 3, as well as unrestricted patients subject to a hospital order under part III, without any formal requirement to consult other professionals. This is already considered outdated practice in most clinical settings, where decisions are typically made within the multi-disciplinary team. However, that is not required by law. By contrast, discharge decisions for restricted patients remain with the Secretary of State for Justice or the mental health tribunal and are not affected by the clause.
Clause 34 seeks to change the current situation. It will insert proposed new subsections (2A) to (2C) into section 23 of the 1983 Act, placing a statutory consultation duty on responsible clinicians, local authorities and, in some cases, the patient’s nominated person. The aim, as outlined in the Government’s explanatory notes and by the Minister, is to formalise best practice and ensure that no discharge decision is made unilaterally without appropriate professional oversight. The Opposition welcome the intention behind the clause—strengthening safeguards, encouraging multidisciplinary collaboration and protecting patients from unsafe or premature discharges are all necessary and overdue steps—but we have a few questions about it that I hope the Minister will address.
First, proposed new subsection (2A) requires the responsible clinician to
“consult a person—
(i) who has been professionally concerned with the patient’s care or treatment, and
(ii) who belongs to a profession other than that to which the responsible clinician belongs”.
That is a sound principle, but there is an ambiguity in the phrase “has been professionally concerned”. Who do the Government have in mind? The Minister set out that it could be a nurse or a counsellor, but would it stretch as far as a GP or a practice nurse? Will there be a codifying list, either in statute or in the code of practice, so that we know who is expected to speak to that person? Does it require current involvement in the patient’s care? For example, could a professional who saw the patient only briefly many months ago qualify? If so, is that adequate to meet the clause’s intention? We would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether a definition of who and what an appropriate consultee looks like will be covered in guidance or regulations.
Secondly, I fully understand the good intent behind proposed new subsection (2B)(c), but as a good Opposition we should point out a possible unforeseen problem. It states that when the nominated person—that is, the person chosen by the patient to act in their interests—is making a discharge decision under guardianship, they
“must consult the responsible local social services authority.”
That raises both legal and practical questions. Is it appropriate to place a statutory duty on a layperson, who may be a relative, a friend or a carer with no formal training or professional support? What is the consequence if they fail to consult? Would their decision be invalid, or could it be legally challenged?
I know that the Government are trying to ensure that relatives and advocates are consulted, which is commendable. I am sure there will be no issue in the vast majority of cases, but there is a risk that the duty may unintentionally create legal uncertainty and administrative burdens for families. Has the Minister thought about whether it might be better framed as a duty on the local authority to advise or support the nominated person, rather than vice versa? I am sure we both agree on the motive and principle of shared decision making; it is simply a question of where to place the burden.
Thirdly, under proposed new subsection (2C), if someone is on a community treatment order, the responsible clinician and hospital managers must consult the community clinician before they discharge the person from that order. Again, that seems sensible, but what happens if there is no identified or available community clinician? As we have discussed, they are legally named, so could that requirement create a bottleneck to discharge? Will there be provision for proceeding with discharge if consultation is not practicable within a reasonable time? Without such a safeguard, there is a risk that patients remain subject to detention, such as conditions under a CTO, even when all parties agree that discharge is clinically appropriate.
Furthermore, the clause does not appear to require the consultation outcome to be documented, nor any disagreement to be recorded. If the responsible clinician consults someone and then disregards their view—as we heard earlier, according to the Minister they have precedence—that may be entirely justified, but surely transparency demands the recording of the reasons. Will the Government consider adding a requirement to document consultation, perhaps in the code of practice, to ensure that reasons are given when discharge proceedings are taken against clinical advice?
The clause represents an important step towards improving safety, accountability and multidisciplinary care in discharge planning, but the Opposition believe that to realise its full potential and avoid creating uncertainty or delay, the Government should look again at the clarity of key terms, such as “professionally concerned”; the appropriateness of placing duties on laypeople, such as the nominated person; the practical challenges around consultations when key professionals are not available; and the need for clear documentation requirements to uphold transparency and safeguarding in decision making. I look forward to hearing the Minister address those points.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury asked about differences of opinion. The second professional does not have to agree. The ultimate decision in such cases sits with the responsible clinician, to ensure the clear accountability of decision making.
The hon. Lady also asked about delays. We see consultation with another professional as important to making a more informed decision on whether the patient is ready for discharge under the Act. It is especially important that the second professional involved in discharge decisions is from a discipline different from that of the responsible clinician. That will ensure a broader perspective, particularly when the second professional, such as a nurse, may have had more frequent contact with the patient.
Aphra Brandreth
On the discipline of the second clinician consulted, is there any guidance as to who might be appropriate? I mean not just the list of potential professions but whether there is guidance on who would be appropriate in different situations. We welcome the multidisciplinary approach, but I would like some clarification. Given your earlier response, saying that they need to agree, it is not really clear how this would add to the process. It would help if there were clarity on the professions.
Stephen Kinnock
We will absolutely provide guidance on that in the code, but the consultee in the case of a detained person is someone who is professionally concerned with the patient’s treatment, whether that be in the hospital or in the community, and who is from a discipline different from that of the responsible clinician. Those criteria will be applied throughout the process.
Finally, on the question from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, yes, reasons will have to be given whenever there is a difference of opinion. All the relevant documentation and how that should work will be set out in the code of practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Ascertaining and learning from patients’ experiences of hospital treatment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
This amendment seeks to overturn the previous amendment tabled—sorry, I should have said “the clause”. The clause seeks to overturn the previous amendment, tabled by Earl Howe and Lord Kamall. Although we support the intention of the amendment, our view continues to be that it would be duplicative.
There are already many ways in which service user feedback is used to inform policy and practice. For instance, every year the Care Quality Commission conducts thousands of interviews and visits with people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. That may result in the CQC investigating a complaint or requiring an action statement from providers about service improvements. Although there may be room to enhance existing feedback mechanisms, we would prefer to improve what we have rather than create something new that would risk confusion.
If the objective is to provide time and space for the person to reflect on their past experiences post-discharge, I reassure the Committee that that should already form a part of co-producing a person’s care in the community plan. We also intend to create space for individuals to reflect on past experiences when making their advance choice document, with facilitation from a suitably qualified person.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Young people who have been through detention often report challenging circumstances following that detention. Rather than supporting them, that sometimes increases their trauma. Can the Minister assure me that, as part of the changes he just set out, we will still ensure that young people have the opportunity to feed their experiences back? What specific work will the Government undertake to gather those views from young people?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we create a space for young people to provide feedback. Some of that will be around past experiences when making their advance choice documents, but much broader opportunities for feedback will absolutely be built into the system. We want this to be a learning process. It is important that the code of practice is not just a document that sits on the shelf gathering dust; it should be a live document. That is why the feedback is so important.
It should be noted that although reflecting on past experiences may be therapeutic for some individuals, for others it can be traumatic, so the measure should be entirely service-user led. We also continue to be concerned about the burden that the amendment would place on independent mental health advocacy services, which are already under strain.
Gregory Stafford
I apologise—this may be due to the terminology of “amendment” versus “clause”—but is the Minister saying that the Government are likely to vote against clause 35 as it currently stands? He is talking about amendments and clauses, and that is slightly confusing me. [Interruption.] His officials are nodding.
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, but the issue may have a bearing on a potential Division. The challenge that I am facing is that my notes said,
“This amendment seeks to overturn”,
but we are talking about a clause that is seeking to overturn a previous amendment. Are we speaking in favour of a clause that will overturn an amendment? [Interruption.] Confusion reigns.
The Chair
Clause 35 was added by a Lords amendment; maybe that is where the confusion has come from. The Government tabled an amendment to leave out clause 35.
Stephen Kinnock
We will figure it out as we go along. I have now lost my place. [Interruption.] My answer to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is that the Government are voting against clause 35 stand part.
Stephen Kinnock
Right. Advocates have told us that implementing what is set out in the clause would raise logistical and resourcing problems, as it would require a significant shift from their current role. They have also raised concerns that if they acted in effect on behalf of the hospital to collect feedback, their independence and impartiality in the eyes of the patient might be undermined. We would prefer to direct resources to increasing access to advocacy services among in-patients, as proposed by the Bill. Advocates play a crucial role in promoting and protecting the rights of patients. We do not wish to detract from that or to dilute their role. I do not commend the clause to the Committee.
Jen Craft
Like many Committee members, I was deeply confused about how we were proceeding.
On the face of it, the clause broadly seems as if it should be part of any Act about mental health care, including post discharge. I have spoken about my own experience of interacting with the Mental Health Act as it stands. I might have found the clause fairly helpful post discharge and others might have found it useful as well. However, I have just heard the Minister’s description of the limitations of the clause, and the speech that I was about to make has been thrown into complete disarray by the confusion just now. But I implore the Minister to consider the fact that, when it comes to encouraging participation, understanding, and co-designing and co-producing services, capturing the experience of those recently detained under the Mental Health Act can be extraordinarily useful. Clause 35, which was added by an amendment from the Lords, seems a fairly useful way to do that.
Gregory Stafford
Like the hon. Lady, I see many benefits from the clause. Like many Committee members, I am surprised that the Government intend to vote against it.
As has been mentioned, the clause was inserted in the House of Lords by my noble Friends Earl Howe and Lord Kamall. I think it introduces a very valuable and forward-looking provision—namely, a mandatory debrief session within 30 days of discharge. It introduces a formal mechanism for learning from patient experiences following detention under the Mental Health Act. Although patient feedback mechanisms exist in some services, they are not consistently applied or mandated. The clause ensures that every detained patient has the opportunity to reflect on their care with an independent advocate, and that their feedback contributes to service improvement. It reflects a broader shift in mental health law towards transparency, accountability and the patient voice, and aligns with the recommendations from the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which the Government have used as an argument in favour of many of the other clauses.
Clause 35 is more than just a procedural addition. It represents a shift in culture towards embedding the patient voice and accountability in the mental health care system. It recognises the importance of empowering individuals after detention, supporting their recovery, and learning from their lived experience to improve future services. Mental health charities and third sector organisations have strongly endorsed the clause, seeing it as a meaningful step towards a more rights-based, transparent approach to care.
Clearly, the clause empowers patients, because it gives them a structured opportunity to share their experiences and influence service provision. It promotes transparency by requiring hospitals to report publicly on what they have learned and how they have responded. It supports quality improvement by encouraging services to reflect on and address systemic issues in the delivery of care. Furthermore, it has independent oversight through the involvement of IMHAs, which helps to ensure that feedback is gathered impartially and respectfully.
The reforms prioritise professional clinical opinion, safeguard children from inappropriate influence during periods of acute vulnerability, and elevate the patient voice in the post-care process. In doing so, they align the Mental Health Act much more closely to modern standards of care, international best practice and evolving public expectations. I believe that the clause is essential to strengthening the Bill and ensuring that our mental health system becomes not only more effective but more compassionate, responsive and just.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to clause 35, which would insert new section 23A into the Mental Health Act 1983. It was introduced and passed in the Lords, and rightly so. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it seems surprising that anyone might want to take it out.
The clause was introduced as a new duty to offer all patients detained under the Act a consultation with an IMHA within 30 days of discharge. The purpose is to review their experience of hospital and learn from that experience through a report shared with hospital managers. Currently, the Mental Health Act makes provisions for access to IMHAs primarily during detention, particularly around decisions concerning treatment and care planning. However, once a patient is discharged, formal advocacy tends to fall away, unless pursued through broader NHS complaints mechanisms. There is no statutory duty to engage with patients post discharge, to understand how they have experienced their care or to systematically learn from those experiences.
In that context, the clause represents a welcome and important step forward. We know from successive reviews from the Care Quality Commission, NHS England and, of course, the independent review of the Mental Health Act, led by Sir Simon Wessely, that patients often feel disempowered during their detention. Many describe experiences of coercion, poor communication or even trauma. Yet those experiences frequently go unheard: lost in the silence that can follow discharge. Clause 35 seeks to change that, creating a pathway for those voices to be heard, and, more importantly, for services to learn from them. I strongly support that principle.
We need to clarify one thing first: the clause says a patient must “be offered” a consultation within 30 days —it is no more formalised than that. It is not a statutory requirement to take part, but purely to offer. That is important when it comes to making sure that reports are made in partnership with the patient. That is positive language, which would help to support the decision making and feedback loop.
In their rebuttals, I appreciate that the Government may ask whether the clause would mean hospital managers marking their own feedback. They might also ask how we would deal with CQC capacity. Those are reasonable questions, but at the heart of the clause, as agreed by the Lords, is the fact that all too often patients’ thoughts after discharge are not fully taken into account.
Gregory Stafford
Surely the fundamental part of the Bill is self-assessment and self-reflection. That does happen in some cases, and certainly in other parts of the healthcare system, but in this area generally does not; when it does happen, it is done in an inconsistent manner. The clause seeks to formalise things and to ensure that there is a benchmark by which service users and patients can feed back to the service they have just come from, to improve services. Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about why the Government would want to take that out?
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. In clinical practice, we know that reflective learning is important, but that is not mandated. As we have seen from the reports, part of the reason why we do not see improvements is that we do not know about them. The clause gives patients the chance to empower themselves in a statutory, regulated way, which then allows us further transparency on how those issues arise.
Let us not forget that patients with good experiences would also have the chance to feed those back, further helping to support the services and hopefully leading to beacons of best practice up and down the nation so that we could then learn from those. That is the idea behind the clause: making sure that the likes of the regulator would be able to share lessons about not only those who have struggled but those who have done well. Clause 35 really offers a rare opportunity to hardwire the patient voice into the feedback loop of mental health services. That is a principle that I and my Opposition colleagues strongly support.
Stephen Kinnock
Fundamentally, we do not support the clause because it is overkill. It simply puts too much burden on to a system that is already carrying out the tasks that the clause seeks to impose on the system, particularly through the CQC. Given that advocates currently have no role in relation to discharged patients, it is clear that the clause would present a new burden; that has been confirmed through my officials’ engagement with advocates and other stakeholders. One hospital manager said that within their small trust alone, the clause would result in contacting and interviewing more than 1,000 individuals discharged from the Act each year.
Dr Evans
The Minister says that advocates had no role in discharge, but they do when advising patients about their rights—that is fundamentally what they do. At the point of discharge, they enable patients to know what their rights are. I take his point about capacity issues. If the Government want to take the clause away, how will they hardwire patients’ feedback into the heart of the Bill?
Stephen Kinnock
The CQC visits and interviews thousands of detained patients each year under its statutory duty to monitor the use of the Mental Health Act. Those visits can lead to the CQC requesting improvements from service providers. The CQC publishes annual reports highlighting key findings and themes from those visits.
Trust boards are responsible for collecting and acting on service user feedback to improve services. Under the NHS contract, the patient and carer race equality framework requires trusts to have clear and visible systems in place for gathering and responding to feedback from patients and carers. What is more, Healthwatch England and its local branches also play a key role in representing the views of health and social care users. I do not really know what more the system could do. The clause simply over-embroiders and over-complicates; when that happens, we usually end up with vast numbers of unintended consequences.
We appreciate that concerns have been raised around the CQC’s role in collecting in-patients’ views. As I said, we would prefer to work with stakeholders to understand those concerns and improve the feedback mechanisms that we have, rather than reinvent the wheel and create something new. We recognise that, although there are multiple aims to the clause, the primary one is to provide a space for people to heal from their experiences of being detained. We are strongly of the view that inviting the individual to share their experiences as part of their advance choice document or care plan—
Jen Craft
I am glad that the Minister is explaining how capturing feedback and experience is being allowed for in other parts of the Bill. To clarify, in my own head I feel that the clause aims to capture the experience immediately after it has happened, just as hospitals offer women who have just given birth the opportunity to talk through their experience. It is healing for the patient to understand what happened to them, and it provides immediate feedback to the hospital. Is that kind of level captured in other parts of the Bill?
Stephen Kinnock
I understand and recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns, but we can rattle through all the different forums where feedback can be captured: the CQC, the trust boards, the patient and carer race equality framework, Healthwatch England and all the other informal channels in the mental health ecosystem. Our view is that adding another layer into all that would in the end be counterproductive. That is the Government’s position.
Natasha Irons
The Minister mentioned the complex network of ways in which patients can give their feedback; perhaps the aim of the clause is to try to simplify that and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned, make it a bit more direct and immediate after treatment. Are there any plans to simplify the process in another way? The complex cobweb that the Minister described is perhaps the reason why the patient voice is not always captured and utilised in a way that we would want if the services that people rely on are to be improved.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I do worry about the list of different organisations and agencies throughout the system, and not just in mental health—so many parts of the system have had layer upon layer of bureaucracy added in. That is one of the reasons why we are abolishing NHS England: we want to try to find greater simplicity and clearer channels of communication.
Through the development of the code of practice and the consultation process, simplifying and clarifying the system will be a key objective. Adding another layer would have the opposite effect. But my hon. Friend makes an important point, which will definitely be a part of the process of consultation and development of the guidelines and code of practice. On the basis of those answers, I recommend that we do not adopt the clause.
The Chair
Order. I am expecting four Divisions imminently, so I will suspend the Committee.
Stephen Kinnock
Clause 36 will introduce a subset of the current conditional discharge power where deprivation of liberty conditions are expressly allowed, otherwise known as supervised discharge. The aim of the clause is to prevent a small group of criminal justice patients with specialised support needs from remaining in hospital unnecessarily, while ensuring the risk they pose in the community is robustly managed. The reform responds to a Supreme Court decision, which found that there was no power under the current Act to impose discharge conditions that amount to a deprivation of liberty. Prior to the judgment, such conditions were used in a small number of cases in which patients with specialist needs required stringent arrangements to protect themselves and the public from harm.
Careful consideration has been given to the ethical and legal balance of the arrangements. We are clear that the threshold for use of the power is very high, and it will be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. A stringent test will be applied. The conditions will only be applied if the tribunal or Justice Secretary views the conditions as necessary to protect others from serious harm and, for the tribunal, if it considers the conditions would be no less beneficial than if the patient remained in hospital. We are also introducing additional safeguards, which ensure that supervised discharge patients are automatically referred to the tribunal after 12 months and every two years thereafter. That is more frequent than patients subject to conditional discharge, given the restrictive nature of the conditions being placed upon them.
I turn to clause 37. Prisoners and other detainees who become acutely mentally unwell in prison or another place of detention, such as an immigration removal centre or youth detention accommodation, can be transferred to hospital for treatment under sections 47 and 48 of the Act. Clause 37 will make two minor changes to those provisions.
Currently, the criteria for detention under the Act provides that appropriate treatment must be “available” for the patient or other detainee. The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that due to the specialised provision and security requirements relating to this cohort of patients, treatment must be available in practice for the detention criteria to be met, meaning that a hospital place must be identified. That diverges from how “available” treatment is interpreted across the rest of the Act, and it risks creating an additional barrier for this cohort of patients in accessing the care they need.
We are therefore clarifying the detention criteria to ensure that they can still be met, based on the patient’s clinical need, even when no hospital place has yet been identified. The change is also necessary for the effective implementation of the statutory time limit in clause 38, so that the Secretary of State is not delayed in issuing a transfer warrant when a specific bed space has not yet been identified. Clause 37 will also update the list of immigration legislation provided in section 48 to expand the scope of immigration detainees who can be transferred under that section.
The Chair
I remind Members that if they want to take their jackets off, they may. It is very warm.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to support clauses 36 to 40. Clause 36 addresses a legal gap identified in case law, which held that the Mental Health Act 1983 did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty for conditionally discharged patients. The clause provides a clear statutory basis for such conditions, but only under strict safeguards. It aims to balance public protection with patient rights, ensuring that DoL conditions are used only when absolutely necessary and proportionate. This is a positive step, because it clarifies the legal authority, resolving any uncertainty, following court rulings, about the legality of DoL conditions in conditional discharges. It protects public safety by ensuring that high-risk patients can be managed safely in the community, under appropriate restrictions. It includes safeguards that require DoL conditions to be justified and proportionate, with a focus on patient welfare, and it aligns with notable human rights law, especially the definitions and principles from the Mental Capacity Act and the relevant case law.
However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. My view is that there is potential for overuse. Without robust oversight, there is a risk that DoL conditions could be used too readily. What safeguards is the Minister putting in place to ensure that that does not happen? There is clearly an impact on patient liberty, and we need to get the balance right. Even with the safeguards, these conditions significantly restrict individual freedom and therefore must be carefully monitored. How is the Minister ensuring that that will happen? In relation to the legal thresholds, determining whether conditions meet the legal test may require detailed clinical and legal assessment. We have talked about the practical implications of this Act on numerous occasions. I again ask the Minister whether he is certain that we have the relevant clinical and legal assessors out there to ensure that we can push that forward.
Clause 37, entitled “Transfers of prisoners and others to hospital: conditions”, will update the legal framework for transferring individuals from prison or immigration detention to hospital under the Mental Health Act. The previous wording of the Act required that treatment be “available”, but did not specify that it must be appropriate for the individual’s condition. This clause will align the criteria with more modern clinical standards and broader reforms in the Bill, which emphasise person-centred care and treatment suitability. It will also ensure that immigration detainees are clearly included in the scope of these provisions. Again, it is positive, because it updates and consolidates the list of immigration-related detention powers covered by the Act. It supports human rights compliance, because it aligns with principles of lawful and proportionate deprivation of liberty under article 5 of the European convention on human rights; it brings the Act in line with the current clinical and legal terminology; and, most importantly, it ensures that transfers are made only when appropriate treatment—not just any treatment—is available.
I have just a couple of questions for the Minister on this clause. I see potential for disputes. Determining what constitutes appropriate treatment may lead to disagreements between clinicians and authorities. What are the Minister’s thoughts on those potential disagreements? There are also some resource implications. It may increase demand for secure hospital beds if more transfers are approved under the revised criteria. I would welcome any thoughts from the Minister on how to ensure that we have the right number of secure hospital beds, not just as a totality, but in the specific regions and areas where people may be being detained.
Clause 38 is also about the transfer of prisoners and others to hospital, but specifically about time limits. It responds to a long-standing concern about delays in transferring prisoners and immigration detainees to hospital for mental health treatment. Under the current system, there is no statutory time limit, and individuals can wait weeks or months in prison, despite being assessed as needing urgent psychiatric care. That has been criticised by mental health professionals, legal advocates and human rights bodies. The clause will introduce a legal framework for setting and enforcing time limits, aligning with the Bill’s broader goals, which I think we all agree with, of improving patient rights and dignity and timely access to care. Again, I support the clause, because it will reduce delays. It will help to ensure that mentally unwell detainees are transferred to appropriate care settings without unnecessary delay, and will introduce clear expectations and accountability for decision making. It enables some flexibility, I think, because it allows for tailored regulations, to accommodate different case types and operational realities.
Again, however, I have some questions. I think there will be some implementation challenges. Services may struggle to meet the deadlines without sufficient resources —an issue that I mentioned in relation to the previous clause. Also, time limits may be difficult to apply in complex or borderline cases without clear guidance. Does the Minister see a need for explicit guidance in the code of conduct, or in some other form, to ensure that the risk of a rigid application does not make things more complicated or, more especially, mean that a potential patient is sent to the wrong care simply because we are focusing on the time rather than the appropriateness of the care? Of course, I would welcome his thoughts on how any new tracking systems and co-ordination between prisons, hospitals and the Ministry of Justice might work in this case.
Finally, I will briefly touch on clause 39. This is a technical update regarding the term “remand centre”, because that is no longer used in law or in practice; instead, young people are remanded to youth detention accommodation. Given that the clause is purely technical, I support it.
Anna Dixon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will briefly speak in support of clauses 36 to 40. These clauses reflect the principle of least restriction, albeit for people who are subject to part III, and who are therefore subject to the deprivation of liberty conditions. It is really important that there are frameworks around conditional discharge, and these clauses will do a lot to bring it in line with best practice, and to put the limit set out in the best practice guidelines on a statutory footing to ensure that there is a 28-day transfer. To be successful, that will require multidisciplinary working between the health and justice systems. With that in mind, will the Minister give an assurance that he is confident that the 28-day limit can be met? If there is already data on how many transfers are made within that time limit, in line with best practice guidelines, that would give some assurance that the new statutory time limit is likely to be met.
I am pleased to see that the time limit should be breached only in exceptional circumstances, and that the Bill specifies that a shortage of hospital beds or staff does not constitute exceptional circumstances. It is really important that that is not used as a reason not to transfer or discharge people later than the 28-day limit. Some of the discharge test rests not only on whether there is a risk of harm to another person, but on a public test. Can the Minister clarify how those two tests will work in tandem? Is that already being done in practice?
Finally, I note that the evidence that we have received from the Care Quality Commission says that it welcomes closing the legal gap following the High Court ruling, as set out in the explanatory notes. However, the CQC believes that supervised discharge should be used only “when strictly necessary”, and I know that there are ongoing discussions between the Department’s officials and the Care Quality Commission. Can the Minister give an update on those discussions and clarify what role, if any, the CQC will play in the oversight of these measures?
As the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said, clauses 67 to 70 bring the Bill in line with youth justice practices and terminology, and with immigration policy. It is important that we take the opportunity to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date and in line with other pieces of legislation, so I support the clauses.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I rise to speak in support of clauses 36 to 40, which provide critical legal clarification and technical refinements to the 1993 Act. While differing in scope and impact, each of these provisions is underpinned by a clear shared commitment to enhance public protection, uphold patient rights, and ensure that the legal framework reflects both current clinical practice and developments in case law.
Let me begin with clause 36, which addresses a long-standing lacuna in the legislative architecture governing conditionally discharged restricted patients. It follows the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Secretary of State of Justice v. MM, where it became clear that the existing Mental Health Act did not permit the imposition of conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty as part of conditional discharge. The decision created uncertainty for clinicians, tribunals and, most crucially, risk-managed patients living in the community. It is therefore pleasing to see that clause 36 seeks to address that gap. The clause introduces new statutory powers for both the Secretary of State and the first-tier tribunal, in respect of imposing deprivation of liberty conditions in the community. It does so with some stringent safeguards.
Dr Evans
I rise to address clauses 36 to 40, which focus on patients involved in criminal proceedings or serving custodial sentences, and how we better align their care and liberty and the protection of the public. These clauses engage serious and sensitive issues—individual liberty, the management of risk and the functioning of the justice and health systems in tandem.
I turn first to clause 36. Under the current Mental Health Act, a restricted patient—typically someone who has been detained under a hospital order with restrictions due to the risk they pose—can conditionally be discharged under section 42 by the Secretary of State for Justice or under section 73 by the tribunal. Conditions can be placed on their discharge, but they cannot amount to deprivation of liberty. This is key. If conditions require constant supervision or control, such as being escorted at all times, then the patient cannot be discharged at all, even if they no longer need in-patient treatment. This was confirmed in the Supreme Court case, MM v. Secretary of State for Justice, in 2018.
Essentially, at the heart of the clause is a group of individuals who have been detained in a hospital under a restricted hospital order. In other words, they are people who have committed serious offences but were found to be suffering from mental disorders at the time. These individuals are not sent to prison; instead, they are detained in secure hospitals under the Mental Health Act. In some cases, clinicians and tribunals decide that someone can be discharged from hospital, but only if they comply with very strict conditions. These can include requirements such as living in a particular place with 24-hour supervision, not leaving without permission, being monitored at all times and other limits that can seriously restrict their liberty.
The issue arose in the case MM v. WL, in which a patient with capacity had consented to highly restrictive discharge conditions involving 24-hour supervision. The court found that the discharge under such conditions could not lawfully take place under the Mental Health Act, even with the patient’s consent, because it amounted to deprivation of liberty, and it was not lawful to call it a “conditional discharge”.
The law as it stands does not provide for that, which is where this clause comes in. Clause 36 seeks to address the impasse by amending sections 42 and 73 of the Act. It allows both the Secretary of State and the tribunal to impose deprivation of liberty conditions upon discharge only where they are necessary to protect others from serious harm, and where conditional discharge is no less beneficial to the patient than continued hospital detention.
I also welcome the intent of the clause: to introduce the principle of least restriction, ensuring that patients are not kept in hospital simply because the law offers no safe option. Paragraph 281 of the explanatory notes states:
“This power supports the principle of least restriction by allowing patients to be discharged from hospital and treated in the community, where otherwise this might have been prevented.”
However, I would like to raise several probing questions for the Minister. Do we know how many patients are currently affected by the MM judgment and held in hospital longer than clinically necessary? How will patients be supported to challenge these conditions, particularly if they have capacity and disagree with the restrictions? Equally, if we flip it and argue for more restrictions, what if there are concerns or disagreements from the services, clinicians or families? How will they be able to challenge the decision in reverse?
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley is here, as I am not legal expert, but when I was prepping for this, I also noted the retrospective effect of clause 36(5), which allows certain conditions to be applied to those already detained or conditionally discharged when the clause comes into force. The retrospective effect of clause 36 is noted specifically in subsection (5) and reinforced in the explanatory notes. Subsection (5) states:
“The amendments made by this section apply in relation to any person who is a restricted patient within the meaning given by subsection (1) of section 79 of the Mental Health Act 1983, or is treated as a restricted patient as a result of that subsection, whether the person became such a patient (or treated as such a patient) before or after the coming into force of this section.”
This is a clear signal of retrospective application. I believe, in legal terms, this has the effect of changing legislation to make a provision apply as if it has always been in law in the past, not just from the date of commencement. What does this mean? This clause effectively retroactively legalises conditional discharges that include deprivation of liberty before the Bill becomes law, even though under current law, following the MM judgment, that was not permissible.
The explanatory notes to the Bill make this point more directly. For example, paragraph 284 on page 53 states:
“Clause 36 subsection (5) allows the new measures to operate retrospectively by providing that deprivation of liberty conditions can be imposed on restricted patients who are already detained, or who are conditionally discharged, at the time the provisions come into force.”
Again, I am no lawyer, but this makes it clear that the Government are intent on validating past decisions, particularly those made before that are contrary to the MM judgment, which held that the Mental Health Act did not permit deprivation of liberty as part of the conditional discharge. Can the Minister confirm that article 5 of the ECHR safeguards has been fully considered in that respect? On page 72 of the explanatory notes, paragraph 394 says that the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) believes that the Bill is compatible with the ECHR. To my surprise, when I was working on this at the weekend, I noticed that it says, “in her view”—a small drafting error that highlights my hours and hours of prep for this.
On a serious note, the real-world effect of clause 36(5) is to retroactively legalise the use of conditional discharges that involve deprivation of liberty even though, under current law as interpreted by the courts, such decisions were unlawful at the time that they were made. Why does that matter? The retrospective provision protects public authorities, particularly the Secretary of State for Justice, and mental health professionals from legal liability for decisions made before, or in disregard of, the MM judgment. It shields decisions that may have breached a patient’s rights, particularly their right to liberty under article 5 of the ECHR, by making those actions lawful after the fact.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the challenges of that court ruling, which will stand unless the Bill amends the law, is that there will be people detained for longer than is appropriate because a conditional discharge is not possible under the law as it is currently interpreted? The whole Bill is about the principle of least restriction. Does he not agree that we need to make this change to fit with that principle?
Dr Evans
I agree on that, and we will support the clause. But, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out earlier, we need interoperability between the moving parts to make sure that they all align with the provision in the clause. She is absolutely right: this measure is in the Bill because the patient in the MM case had capacity and had agreed to being discharged with deprivation of liberty impositions, and that was found to be unlawful because of a parallel Act. What I am worried about, and the point that I am trying to make, is that there are so many moving parts in these Acts that we could be in danger of complicating the situation further.
Clause 36 seeks to address the uncertainty by legislating for a new power to impose deprivation conditions as part of a conditional discharge, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out. However, in doing so, the clause effectively runs parallel to, and perhaps even conflicts with, the as yet un-implemented LPS framework. The Government introduced the LPS framework through the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019. It was intended to be more flexible and responsive than DoLS. But given that the LPS framework has not been commenced, and that there is no clear timetable for implementation—the Minister seemed to suggest that he was unsure whether he will implement them, even though the 2019 Act was passed by Parliament—are we legislating for an entirely separate deprivation of liberty route under the Mental Health Act, and potentially bypassing or duplicating existing safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act?
It all comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley about good record keeping and legislative housekeeping. I ask the Minister how the new conditional discharge power will interact with either the DoLS or the liberty protection safeguards—if they are eventually implemented. Are they simply a subsection of the deprivation of liberty conditions, and therefore would not matter? Can the Minister foresee a time where a patient could be subject to both the new powers and the LPS, and if so, who is the decision maker and where do the appeals rightly lie? Should we not wait for the full implementation of the LPS before layering further deprivations in place? That is an open and rhetorical question, but one that vexes me when we are discussing this Bill in detail. There is a real risk here of fragmenting the legal landscape, leading to confusion for clinicians, patients and carers.
Clause 37, which is about conditions relating to the transfers of prisoners and others to hospital, addresses a barrier to timely transfers from prison to hospital. At present, under the case R (ASK) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department of 2019, a transfer from prison under section 47 or 48 of the Mental Health Act cannot be authorised unless a specific hospital bed has already been identified. While well intentioned, that threshold has arguably had a negative effect in deterring referrals and delaying access to treatment.
Clause 37 rightly lowers that threshold. It amends section 47 and 48 of the Act so that a hospital place need not be available at the point of referral. Instead, the clinical decision about suitability for hospital can proceed earlier, allowing for better planning and quicker transfers. That seems a pragmatic response to a bureaucratic bottleneck, but how will this amendment be implemented in practice to ensure that it does not create the false expectation of imminent transfer? Will there be national guidance issued for uniform application of that new test across the entire prison estate?
Clause 38 deals with transfers from prisons to hospitals, and their timeline. It introduces a new statutory duty for transfers from prison or detention to hospital to be completed within 28 days of initial review for assessment via proposed new sections 47A and 48A. As we have heard, that reflects good existing practice. The NHS England guidance already recommends that transfers should be completed within 28 days. However, clause 38 now gives that statutory force subject to exceptional circumstances, which the Bill carefully defines. For instance, as we have heard, shortages of staff and hospital beds do not qualify unless they are caused by exceptional events such as fires or flooding.
This clause is welcomed as an important safeguard for therapeutic benefit, because delays in transfer can cause serious deterioration. It must, however, be supported by sufficient resources and capacity, on which I have a few questions. What assessment has been made of compliance with the 28 day target, and what proportion of cases currently fall outside of it? Will investment be made to ensure bed availability and staffing so that those statutory duties may be fulfilled? When this was debated in the other place, the Justice Minister said:
“I am pleased to share that this Government have recently established a health and justice strategic advisory group, which will bring together key partners with responsibility for the various parts of the transfer process. This group will be chaired by a national clinical director, who will report regularly to Ministers and be responsible for agreeing a joint work plan to support implementation of the statutory time limit, identifying solutions to common barriers to timely transfers and holding partners to account.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2025; Vol. 845, c. 102.]
That is laudable, so I tabled a written question to find out about the group that Lord Timpson talked about. Fortunately, the answer to my written question came back today. The group have not met and are not meeting until 1 July, so I ask for some clarification around that committee. It seems welcome, and this is a complex area. Given that the Justice Minister raised that issue, who will the group report to—the Ministry of Justice or the Department of Health?
Later in his remarks, Lord Timpson talks about the written ministerial statement coming to Parliament. We have heard the Government say that a couple of times about reporting timescales, but in his speech Lord Timpson talked about reporting to Ministers. What kind of time- scales and frequency can we expect if the group has not even met yet? What reporting will there be to Ministers, either in the Ministry of Justice or the Department of Health, to address some of the issues that we are debating today?
Clause 39 deals with transfer directions for persons detained in youth detention accommodation. It is rightly pointed out that this is a gap in the law. There is no power under section 48 to transfer to hospital a child who has been remanded to a youth detention accommodation by the Crown court, even if they urgently need in-patient care for mental disorders. That really does seem to be an anomaly. Such power exists for magistrates court remands, so clause 39 rightly corrects this, and I support it. Do we know how many children have been affected by that gap since 2012? I ask because if this is to come into law with immediate effect, it will have an immediate resource effect. We of course want to make sure that everyone—particularly young people—is in the right place. The fact that some of them legally are not may well cause another problem for us all.
Finally, I turn to clause 40, which appears to be a technical clarification of schedule 1 of the 1983 Act, confirming that the whole of section 66(2)(d) is disapplied for unrestricted part III patients. It clarifies the right of application to the tribunal, and to me it seems uncontroversial and helpful.
I acknowledge the thoughtful work being proposed in these clauses, and I understand what they are trying to do. They represent a clear attempt to modernise and humanise the way the Mental Health Act applies to some of the most vulnerable and high risk patients in our system, but we must ensure that any new powers, particularly those involving deprivation of liberty and retrospective legislation, are subject to clear safeguards, scrutiny and proper resourcing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my questions.
Stephen Kinnock
On safeguards, supervised discharge will only be used when necessary, given its restrictive nature and significant resource demands. A stringent test will apply. It must be deemed necessary by the tribunal or Justice Secretary to protect others from serious harm, and the tribunal must deem it to be no less beneficial than hospital care. Additional safeguards include automatic tribunal referrals after 12 months and every two years thereafter, if not previously reviewed.
On capacity, our expectation is that this will not have a significant impact on other restricted patients. The small cohort who are likely to be subject to supervised discharge will free beds, and that could positively impact any patient who needs a bed, but the numbers remain small and are unlikely to lead to widespread bed availability.
On demand for secure beds, clause 37 will correct a discrepancy in detention criteria caused by a Court of Appeal decision. Rather than creating further disparity, it aligns the criteria for sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act with the consistent interpretation of available treatment used throughout the rest of the Act. Clause 37 does not alter the approach to clinical prioritisation of in-patient care, or the fact that a person will only be transferred once an appropriate bed has been found, in terms of both therapeutic care and level of security. That also addresses the question on implementation from the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.
I turn to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. She asked about the 28-day limit. Any change to the time limit would require an enhanced level of parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, the power shall be subject to the draft affirmative procedure to ensure that both Houses are given the opportunity to debate any decision.
On dual tests, the Secretary of State for Justice applies a slightly different test from that of the tribunal in order to preserve their discretion in the interests of public protection, but conditions for patients must still be appropriate and proportionate. We will publish operational guidance to make it clear that the Secretary of State for Justice should have regard to the principle of therapeutic benefit and only use this type of discharge when the evidence indicates that it is in the best interests of the patient.
Under section 120 of the Mental Health Act, the Care Quality Commission and Health Inspectorate Wales have a duty to monitor the use of the Act. Patients subject to supervised discharge will be captured by section 120 for the purpose of regulatory oversight as a subset of conditionally discharged patients who are liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act.
I turn to the questions asked by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. The Ministry of Justice considers that these measures are compatible with article 5 of the European convention on human rights. In 2018, the Supreme Court case of Secretary of State for Justice v. MM established that there was no lawful basis under the Act to impose conditions that amounted to a deprivation of liberty. The new provisions will provide a statutory basis for the Justice Secretary and the tribunal to impose such conditions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in schedule 3, page 91, line 13, after “patient” insert
“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”.
This amendment extends the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal inpatients under 18.
Government amendments 42 and 43.
Schedule 3.
Stephen Kinnock
I will first discuss clause 41 and schedule 3. Independent mental health advocates are specially trained advocates who can support patients detained under the Mental Health Act to understand their rights and participate in decisions about their care and treatment, but not everyone who would benefit from an independent mental health advocate currently has access to one. In view of the benefits that advocacy can bring, we are expanding the right to an independent mental health advocate to all mental health patients, including informal or voluntary patients who are not detained under the Act.
We know that some informal patients are not told about their rights and legal status. Informal patients in Wales already have the protection, and we want to extend it to patients in England. It will help ensure that the voices of individuals are heard and their rights respected, and that potentially vulnerable groups, including children and young people, do not go without important advocacy protections.
Moreover, the Bill provides an additional enhanced mechanism for ensuring that the most vulnerable mental health patients, those compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act, are able to benefit from advocacy. We are introducing an opt-out system for that particular cohort, to put the onus on hospital managers rather than patients themselves to request independent mental health advocacy services. Hospital managers must notify providers of advocacy services about the patients who are eligible for IMH advocacy. Advocacy providers must then arrange for independent mental health advocates to interview those patients to find out whether they want to use their services.
The right to an independent mental health advocate will also be expanded to include part III patients who are subject to the new supervised discharge, which allows for part III patients to be conditionally discharged into the community and still deprived of their liberty. The Bill also enables independent mental health advocates to provide extra help to patients to have a greater say in their treatment or to make a complaint. Together, these changes increase the access that patients have to advocacy, which contributes to improved patient rights.
I will next address amendment 19. We appreciate that people under 18 are a vulnerable group who would benefit from advocacy representation. For this reason, the Bill extends the right to an independent mental health advocate to informal patients, including under-18s, who are often admitted on a voluntary basis. We are introducing a duty on hospital managers to inform them of this right. That means that hospital managers will be expected to proactively approach all children and young people, and others, such as their parents or carers, to make sure they know that they are entitled to an advocate and help them to appoint one.
We will make it clear in the code of practice how independent mental health advocates should support children and young people with their particular needs. However, we think it is right that detained patients, including under-18s—rather than informal patients—receive advocacy on an opt-out basis. This is because they are subject to greater restrictions, meaning that it is even more important that they are supported to exercise their rights.
Finally, I will address Government amendments 42 and 43. Schedule 3 introduces the concept of “English qualifying informal patients”, who, for the first time in England, will be eligible for independent mental health advocacy services. We are amending this measure to change the definition of both English and Welsh qualifying informal patients. Amendments 42 and 43 are minor amendments to address a technical issue with the legislation. There is case law saying that the term “informal patient” would cover anyone there on a voluntary basis and not subject to any compulsory legislative framework. However, as currently drafted, the Bill’s definition is wider, defining an informal patient in England or Wales as an in-patient in hospital who is receiving assessment or treatment for a mental disorder at the hospital but not subject to the Mental Health Act. A person deprived of their liberty under any other legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or under a court order would therefore be classed as an “informal patient”, which would be incorrect, as people who are detained cannot, under case law, be informal patients.
That would lead to complications in practice. A patient subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards would be eligible for independent mental health advocacy as well as independent mental capacity advocacy. However, an independent mental health advocate cannot provide any help or support in relation to the Mental Capacity Act. The amendments address that issue by changing the definitions of “English qualifying informal patient” and “Welsh qualifying informal patient”, to be an in-patient receiving assessment or treatment for a mental disorder who is not detained under any other legislation or court order.
For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Winchester is satisfied not to press his amendment, and I commend Government amendments 42 and 43, clause 41 and schedule 3 to the Committee.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to speak to clause 41, which brings into sharper focus two pillars of a fair and rights-based mental health system: the provision of clear information to patients and the strengthening of independent mental health advocacy. It rightly recognises that, when a person is detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, often during a period of acute crisis and difficulty in their life, they need to feel that their clinical needs are being met, but in a way that respects them as individuals, with the same entitlements to dignity and agency as any other member of our society.
The clause provides for informal patients to be eligible for an independent mental health advocate. I welcome the extension to enable more individuals to access this vital advocacy. It empowers patients to know that independent advocacy is available, but we must ensure that there are sufficient resources so that those who choose this help are given sufficient support when they are in a potentially vulnerable position. As someone representing a constituency that is in England but borders Wales, I also welcome that these changes bring care into line so that advocacy help is offered to informal patients, regardless of which side of the border they are accessing treatment.
The clause places a renewed duty on services to ensure that information is given to patients clearly, promptly and in a form that they can understand. It introduces an obligation for advocacy providers to determine, through an interview, whether a qualifying patient wishes to use the service. This support is important; no person should be expected to navigate the complexities of mental health legislation, or their rights under it, without proper guidance. However, where there is a duty
“on hospital managers and others to notify providers of advocacy services about qualifying patients”,
can the Minister clarify who is meant by “others”? Will there be a list of people and roles who are given this responsibility?
The role of an independent mental health advocate is vital. These individuals can be a lifeline. They can help people to understand their rights and any medical treatment, and crucially, can support an individual to have their say about any treatment. Clause 41 rightly reinforces the importance of independent mental health advocates, and it is important that we match that ambition with the legal and practical steps to support them.
It is entirely right that we welcome the recognition of the role of independent mental health advocates, who serve a vital function in ensuring that patients’ voices are heard and their views represented, especially when navigating what can be an incredibly complex legal and clinical environment. Their independence is fundamental to not only their effectiveness but the confidence that patients and families can place in the system, which brings me back to my point. It is therefore important that we support independent mental health advocates with the resources that they need to do their job effectively.
If we are to rely further on advocates, we need to ensure that they are in a position to deal with that, so that we do not create statutory entitlements that are difficult to act upon. Actions, as well as words, are needed. At present, many areas already struggle with advocacy coverage. If we now place additional expectations on the service, and I believe that we will through this provision, we must ensure that there are sufficient numbers of trained, experienced independent mental health advocates across the country to meet rising demand. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary people with the skills and training are available to fulfil this expanded role?
We must also consider the patients’ experience, as has been the focus of so many of the remarks made in the Committee today. Again, I emphasise the vulnerability of patients at times of crisis. If we are to tell patients that support in the form of an advocate is there for them, we need to ensure that it is accessible and easy to reach and understand. Clause 41 moves us in the right direction, but implementation is everything. It must be backed by local accountability, adequate funding and clear operational guidance. This includes ensuring that all patients, regardless of background, language or capacity, are given support that is appropriate and effective.
It is vital to consider the wider implications of this clause. The reinforcement of the independent mental health advocate’s involvement should be mirrored by greater investment in advocacy services, stronger integration with care planning and more regular engagement with patients themselves on how these services work in practice. In our earlier discussions, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon suggested that we use trials, which could also be considered here to ensure that, as changes are brought in, they are matched by appropriate service levels.
I am largely supportive of clause 41, which I think moves us in the right direction towards a transparent mental health system that is there for patients, ensuring that they have a voice and are not an afterthought. As long as it is deliverable in practice, and does not give false hope to patients, the clause strengthens the Bill.
Josh Dean
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris—when I wrote my speech, it said “this afternoon”, but it now says “this evening”. I rise to speak to clause 41 and schedule 3. I welcome the role that they will play in extending the right to access the services of an independent mental health advocate to voluntary patients in England not detained under the Mental Health Act, and ensuring that all detained patients are offered these services through an automatic referral, creating an opt-out system.
Independent mental health advocates play an important role in supporting patients detained under the Act to understand their rights and participate in decisions around their care and treatment. Clause 41 and schedule 3 seek to ensure that the individual needs of each patient are taken into account, even where they may not be able to engage in decision making about themselves. In doing so, they recognise the patient as an individual. This provides for important safeguards for patients and reinforces the Bill’s principles of autonomy and least restriction, which is a crucial part of bringing mental health legislation into the 21st century. I similarly welcome Government amendments 42 and 43, which seek to further strengthen the important safeguards in the Bill.
I hear the points that the Minister has made on children and young people admitted informally, but I would be grateful if he could address the matter further. As we know, informal patients are those who consent to an admission to a mental health hospital or whose parents consent to an admission on their behalf. Often, they are treated under the same or similar conditions as those detained under the Act. While detained patients will receive an automatic referral to advocacy services under the new opt-out scheme, my understanding is that that will not be the case for those admitted informally, meaning that informal patients would still be required to ask for the support of an independent mental health advocate.
Children admitted informally are likely to experience the same conditions as another child detained under the Act, but without the parity of access to advocacy services through the opt-out system. Because a parent is able to consent to informal treatment on their child’s behalf, they are one of few groups, if not the only one, able to be admitted informally without their own consent. Therefore, there is a concern that children and young people admitted informally may continue to experience problems accessing the support of an advocate. I seek the Minister’s assurance that the Government have considered fully the provision of advocacy services for informally admitted children and young people, and how this gap might be addressed.
I welcome how these parts of the Bill will embed those important principles of individuality, autonomy and least restriction, expanding the important safeguards offered by independent mental health advocates. I would be grateful if the Minister could touch on those points about children and young people in his response.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will speak briefly on schedule 3, which makes a number of important amendments to the 1983 Act concerning the role of independent mental health advocates. The schedule implements several practical reforms to provide consistent and accessible advocacy and support for individuals receiving mental health care. It builds upon existing statutory provisions by extending the right to advocacy beyond detained patients and setting out clearer expectations of how and when advocacy services should be made available.
One of the most notable changes is the extension of IMHA eligibility to include informal patients—individuals receiving voluntary treatment rather than under compulsion. This responds directly to the recommendations made in both the independent review and the 2021 White Paper, which identified disparities in support available to different patient groups. Under these reforms, access to advocacy is no longer limited to those detained under the Act. Instead, all qualifying patients, including informal ones, will be eligible for IMHA support where appropriate. This change reflects the recognition that voluntary status does not necessarily equate to full understanding or confidence in navigating care decisions.
To ensure that eligible individuals are aware of and able to use this support, hospital managers will now be required to notify advocacy services when a patient becomes eligible. This automatic referral mechanism removes the onus from patients themselves to initiate contact, many of whom may not be aware of their rights or may face barriers to asserting them. In turn, advocacy providers will have a duty to arrange an interview with each referred patient to establish whether they wish to use the service. This helps to close the loop between eligibility and engagement, and ensures that advocacy is offered in a timely and structured manner.
Schedule 3 also sets out clearer responsibilities on both hospital managers and advocacy providers. Clearly, that will improve co-ordination and ensure the consistent application of the policy across different care settings and regions. In practice, it should help to reduce gaps where eligible patients might otherwise miss out on support due to ambiguity around who holds the responsibility for initiating contact. It is worth noting that these reforms complement the broader set of changes proposed in clauses 41 to 44, which collectively aim to strengthen patient rights, increase transparency in decision making and improve the overall quality of patient experience in mental health services.
This approach has a number of potential benefits. First, it is likely to improve access to advocacy for groups who have historically been underserved. These include informal patients, individuals with communication difficulties and those less familiar with the mental health system. Secondly, it enhances procedural fairness by ensuring that patients are supported in understanding their options, raising their concerns, or appealing decisions where necessary. Thirdly, it brings the statutory framework into closer alignment with human rights principles and best practice standards, particularly in terms of informed participation and supported decision making.
There are, however, three specific practical challenges that I wish the Minister to acknowledge. First, these reforms will require sufficient resources for advocacy services, particularly as demand is likely to increase once eligibility is broadened. Secondly, effective implementation will depend upon robust co-ordination between hospital managers and external advocacy providers, which may vary in capacity and capability across regions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s approach to ameliorating that. Thirdly, there is a risk of inconsistency in delivery without clear national guidance and adequate oversight mechanisms, so I would be grateful if the Minister could address the mechanisms that are intended to be put in place.
These are not insurmountable issues, but they highlight the importance of a carefully planned implementation strategy, supported by training, monitoring and adequate funding. Schedule 3 represents a targeted and proportionate set of amendments that support the underlying aims of the Bill to ensure that all individuals receiving mental health care, whether formally detained or not, are able to access independent support, understand their rights and participate more fully in decisions about their treatment. [Interruption.]
The Chair
My apologies for the noise in the corridor; there was meant to be a yoga event in here at 6 o’clock. I thank the Doorkeeper for trying very hard to keep everything under control.
Dr Chambers
I do not know whether we could combine yoga with our proceedings, Mrs Harris.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke really well in a similar vein to what I am about to say. Our amendment 19 to clause 41 would extend the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal patients under 18 years old. Young people and their families and carers often face a nightmare navigating the mental health system. We find this on every level. A psychiatrist who came into my office in Winchester said that he and his wife, who is also a medical professional, were struggling to navigate the system to get care for their own child. His words were quite profound: “If we can’t navigate the system, what hope has anyone else got?”
Even when young people have secured desperately needed in-patient care, often after many months of delay, they can face real challenges in understanding the care being implemented and its impact. Often, such young people are cared for far from home. Enabling them to benefit from mental health advocacy that ensures the pressures on the system do not lead to unfair or damaging decisions for mentally ill young people is crucial. It can help to ensure that the patient’s whole situation and entire history is always taken into account, and that treatment is always appropriate, rather than symptoms just being addressed in isolation. We should be looking to empower patients and their families and carers across the whole system, not just in relation to those who are sectioned.
Gregory Stafford
You will be delighted to know that there will be no yoga from me, Mrs Harris.
I rise to support clause 41 and schedule 3, which will expand access to independent mental health advocates to not only those detained under the Mental Health Act but informal voluntary patients. Like many Committee members, I am sure, a number of IMHAs in my constituency have approached me about this, and they welcome the expansion. I pay tribute to the amazing work that they do across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Previously, only patients detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act or subject to certain treatments were entitled to IMHA support.
The clause reflects the recommendations of the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act and the 2021 White Paper, and aims to enhance patient rights and reduce disparities in access to advocacy. That clearly empowers more patients by giving informal patients access to advocacy support. It improves transparency and accountability in mental health care settings. It ensures proactive outreach so that patients are not left unaware of their rights or support options, and supports informed decision making and potentially reduces coercive practices.
Clearly, there may be some resource implications for advocacy services, which the Minister may wish to touch on. Likewise, there may be some implementation challenges, which other hon. Members have raised, especially around ensuring timely and consistent notification and engagement. There could be potential delays in care co-ordination if advocacy processes are not well integrated. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
This shift is long overdue. Too many vulnerable people, admitted voluntarily but feeling powerless, have lacked a clear, independent voice. The clause corrects that injustice by embedding advocacy deeper into the system, moving from passive availability to proactive engagement.
Schedule 3 underpins clause 41 by putting clear duties on hospital managers and advocacy providers alike to ensure that patients are automatically offered support. It is opt out, not opt in. That clarity of responsibility will reduce coercion, increase transparency and ultimately lead to fairer treatment decisions.
Schedule 3 operationalises the principles set out in clause 41 by embedding them in the structure of the Mental Health Act 1983. Like clause 41, it reflects recommendations from the 2018 independent review and the 2021 White Paper, aiming to reduce disparities in access to advocacy and ensure that all patients, regardless of detention status, are supported in understanding and exercising their rights. Like clause 41, it strengthens patient voice, reduces inequalities, improves compliance and encourages the early intervention and resolution of concerns.
Let me turn to Liberal Democrat amendment 19, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester. Clearly, its purpose is to extend the opt-out advocacy services in England to include informal patients under the age of 18. This ensures that children and young people who are not formally detained under the Mental Health Act, but who are receiving in-patient care, still have automatic access to an IMHA.
Currently, opt-out advocacy provisions primarily apply to patients who are formally detained. However, informal patients aged under 18, who may be in hospital with parental consent, can still experience significant restrictions and may not fully understand or exercise their rights. This amendment seeks to close the gap by ensuring that young informal patients are automatically offered advocacy support, recognising their vulnerability and limited legal autonomy.
My view is that this does strengthen patient rights. It safeguards vulnerable patients and promotes equality by aligning the rights of informal patients aged under 18 with those of detained patients. It supports informed decision making and helps young people to understand their rights and treatment options. If the hon. Member is minded to press the amendment, I hope that the Government will at least give it tacit support, even if they do not vote for it. That being said, I would welcome the Minister’s comments on why he does not feel that the amendment, or an alternative draft of the wording, if he does not like the specifics of it, should be included in the Bill. I do believe that this is important.
Government amendments 42 and 43 to schedule 3 are relatively technical but important elements of the Bill that align provision in England and Wales. I have just a few questions for the Minister. Robust rights must come with realistic resources. How will the Government ensure that advocacy services are funded and resourced properly to meet the new wider demand? Although they are technical, the Government amendments will still have an impact. What steps will be taken to monitor consistency so that a patient in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook or one of the villages surrounding my constituency has the same access to an advocate as a patient in Coventry, Aberafan or Swansea. We want to make sure that there is consistency.
Finally, will there be clear standards for timely engagement, especially given the risk of treatment delays if advocacy is not well integrated? If the Minister can answer those questions, I think that this will be a good step forward for patient voice and fairness in mental health, and I would support the clause and schedule 3.
Dr Evans
I rise to speak to clause 41 and schedule 3, which introduce the independent mental health advocate system under the Mental Health Act 1983. I recognise the positive intentions behind the reforms. The proposals respond to long-standing concerns about access to advocacy for people receiving mental health treatment, especially for those who are not detained, but are nevertheless vulnerable, and may struggle to understand the challenges within their care.
Currently, IMHA services are guaranteed only to a relatively narrow group—namely, patients detained under the Act, those under community treatment orders or guardianship, and certain patients undergoing serious medical treatments under sections 57 or 58A. As the explanatory notes make clear in paragraph 313, that excludes a substantial number of informal or voluntary patients, many of whom may be experiencing significant distress or coercion, even if they are technically not detained.
The clause expands eligibility to a new category of English qualifying informal patients, bringing England more in line with a system already used in places such as Wales. This welcome and overdue development reflects the principle that the right to advocacy should be grounded not in a legal status alone, but in need and vulnerability. The introduction of the opt-out referral system for detained patients is also a step forward. Concerns have been raised that eligible patients never access IMHA, often because they are unaware, overwhelmed or too unwell for self-referral. Making the referral automatic is likely to increase the uptake and strengthen patient voices in critical decisions about care, treatment and discharge.
Although the direction of travel is right, I want to raise several probing questions in areas of concern, particularly relating to implementation, scope and safe- guarding. On resource and workforce readiness, the Government are significantly expanding both the pool of eligible patients and the responsibility of advocacy providers. That is welcome, but it inevitably raises the question of capacity. Can the Minister confirm whether additional funding will be made available to local authorities, or is it up to the NHS and IMHA providers to ensure the expansion is deliverable? Are the new roles of the IMHAs explicitly addressed in the new workforce plan that he is introducing? What assessment has been done of the number of new IMHAs that will be required to meet the duties, particularly now we are using an opt-out model? Without the workforce and training in place, there is a risk that the rights introduced in the legislation will not be fully realised in practice.
My second point is about capacity, consent and best-interest decisions. I would like to clarify a couple of points on schedule 3. It would appear, as drafted, that IMHA providers will be required to assess whether a patient has the capacity to decide whether to receive advocacy, and if not, whether it is in their best interests to do so. That gives providers a significant and quasi-clinical responsibility.
Proposed new section 130B(2C) states:
“Arrangements under section 130A must require a provider of advocacy services, on becoming aware of an English qualifying compulsory patient for whom they are responsible, to arrange for an independent mental health advocate to visit and interview the patient (if possible) with a view to determining”,
first,
“whether the patient has the capacity or is competent to take a decision about whether to receive help from an independent mental health advocate”;
secondly,
“if the patient does have that capacity or competence, whether the patient wishes to receive such help”;
and thirdly,
“if the patient does not have that capacity or competence, whether it is nonetheless in the patient’s best interests to receive such help (which, if so, is to be provided under the arrangements).”
On the first point about whether the patient has the capacity or is competent to take a decision about receiving help from an IMHA, my understanding is as follows. The role of independent mental health advocates is to support people detained under the Mental Health Act, to understand their rights and to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. IMHAs do not, I believe, have the legal authority to assess mental capacity. The assessment of mental capacity is typically carried out by a qualified healthcare professional such as a doctor, psychiatrist or specially trained nurse, following guidance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. IMHAs are there to help patients understand the information about their treatment and their rights, and can support them in expressing their views, but they do not perform capacity assessments. So is this a change in professional scope? Is it an oversight? Is it an update? Or is it simply what is happening in practice, which now has legal backing?
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but is not the point of an IMHA to ensure that the patient understands their rights under the previous Act and the Bill? That is how they participate in taking decisions about what is available to the patient. Although they might not be clinically trained, they know the legislation inside out, and that gives power and advocacy to the patient.
Dr Evans
The hon. Gentleman identifies exactly what the point of an IMHA is. The way the Bill is written, the IMHA determines whether a patient has capacity or competence to make a decision. That determining means that they are making the choice, which is quasi-clinical. According to the definition that the hon. Gentleman has just given, that would fall out of the IMHA’s scope, because that would involve the ability to make decisions about capacity.
My concern is whether we have scope creep here. If so, we should be explicit about it—perhaps it is something we want to consider—but the way it is written, IMHAs will make capacity-based decisions about whether a person has the capacity to decide whether they need help. I would argue that that should be done by someone who is qualified as a doctor, a psychiatrist or community psychiatric nurse, as currently happens. That is the clarification that I am looking for from the Government. If I have the wrong end of the stick, I will happily back down, but this area of the Bill needs clarifying.
To that end, and if the Bill is written as I fear, I would welcome it if the Minister can tell us how IMHA providers will be supported to make best interest decisions appropriately, especially in cases involving fluctuating capacity or complex presentations. Will there be clinical oversight or statutory guidance to avoid inconsistency or overreach in these assessments? Although I support the principle of proactively offering advocacy, we must ensure that the decisions made on a person’s behalf are done with the appropriate checks and accountability, and by the right people.
My third point is about the exclusion of emergency section patients. The welcome change in the clause and the schedule expands the pool of support, but we should also pay attention to those who are, by definition, excluded. Paragraph 317 of the explanatory notes make it clear that individuals detained under sections 4, 5, 135 and 136 will not benefit from IMHA support. Those are often people detained in crisis situations, sometimes in police custody, or brought in under emergency powers.
For completeness, will the Minister clarify why that group is being left out, given their heightened vulnerability and the likelihood of distress or disorientation? Are the Government satisfied that patients under these emergency powers are receiving adequate information and support at the most critical moments of intervention? Is there a mechanism to support the nominated person if the patient does not have capacity, so that the nominated person receives the information they need to make a fully informed decision? If the answer is that the duration of detention is too short to justify IMHA involvement, I ask the Minister: how short is too short when a person’s liberty and medical autonomy are in question?
It may be that Government amendments 42 and 43 address some of those points, so I will return to this in a second before moving on to my fourth point. In terms of information sharing and patient autonomy, I welcome the retention of the duty to inform patients, especially informal patients, of their right to advocacy, and for that provision to be given both orally and in writing. However, I note that the responsible person must also—except where the patient requests otherwise—be provided with written information to the nominated person. What safeguards are in place to ensure that that does not inadvertently breach the patient’s privacy, such as in situations involving estranged family members, controlling relationships or very personal health issues, which could be disclosed but are not relevant to mental health? It is essential that the nominated person framework enhances advocacy and support and does not undermine the person’s right to control who knows about their care.
Finally, I would welcome clarity from the Minister about how the uptake and impact of expanding the IMHA system will be monitored. Will there be reporting requirements on providers? If so, will that be through the integrated care boards, or is that part of the CQC? Will patients have the opportunity to feed back on the effectiveness of the support they receive?
Before I turn to the amendments, I reiterate that the Opposition support the principle of strengthening advocacy in mental health services. Clause 41 is an important step towards a more rights-based and person-centred system, but the detail of the implementation is key.
I note that proposed Government amendments 42 and 43 to schedule 3 specifically change the definition of “English qualifying informal patient” and “Welsh qualifying informal patient” to exclude patients detained under any
“legislation or by virtue of a court order”,
rather than limiting exclusion to those detained solely under the Mental Health Act. That important clarification partly improves on one of the problems I mentioned when discussing clause 41.
In simple terms, those amendments try to address the issue of clarity and coverage for patients detained under other laws, and I believe that this is how they do that. Originally, the Bill excluded only patients detained under the Mental Health Act from being classified as informal patients eligible for IMHA services, but some patients might be detained under other laws or court orders, such as criminal justice laws, which the original wording did not cover. The amendments change the definition to exclude anyone detained under any legislation or by a court, not just the Mental Health Act. In practice, this means that patients detained under other laws will not mistakenly be considered informal patients eligible for IMHA services under this part of the Bill.
The proposals close a gap so that the right groups get advocacy services, and there is less confusion for hospitals and advocates about who qualifies. In essence, by broadening and bettering the definition and defining the exclusion, this will ensure that patients detained under other legislation, such as the Criminal Justice Act, or other court-mandated detention powers, are not mistakenly classified as informal patients eligible for IMHA services under those provisions. That reflects a more comprehensive and legally coherent approach to defining eligibility.
This clarity is welcome, as it reduces potential ambiguity in respect of providers. That said, will the Minister comment further on how these changes will interact with existing IMHA provisions or advocacy entitlements for those detained under other legislation? Are there parallel safeguards or advocacy rights for those groups? What guidance will be provided to practitioners and IMHA providers to navigate the complexities of overlapping detention regimes, especially when a patient’s status might shift rapidly between voluntary Mental Health Act detention and court orders? Will this amendment necessitate any further changes in regulations or operational policies to ensure smooth implementation and clarity for patients, families and service providers? Ensuring that no patient falls through the cracks due to definitional nuances is crucial for integrity in our mental health advocacy services.
Finally, Lib Dem amendment 19 would insert after “patient”, in schedule 3, page 91, line 13,
“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”.
As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and Opposition Members rightly pointed out, it is quite hard to see why the Government would not want to put that in place. The explanatory statement says that it aims to extend
“the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal inpatients under 18.”
It seems clear in what it does and is a well-defined amendment to that end. I am keen to understand why the Government do not want to support it. Do they believe that this is currently balanced elsewhere in the system? Are there already provisions elsewhere? If not, why—if it is good for adults and we are strengthening their opportunities—should it not be the same for our children?
I will finish on that point. I would be grateful for answers on the clause, the schedule, the Government amendments and the Lib Dem amendment.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury asked who can make referrals in addition to hospital managers. The list of responsible persons is in proposed new section 130CC, in paragraph 6 of schedule 3. In addition to hospital managers, the responsible local social services authority is also required to notify providers of advocacy services about qualifying patients; whether it is a matter for the hospital or the local authority depends on the patient.
I was asked whether there are enough people to fulfil the tasks of the IMHA. The impact assessment gives our current best estimate of likely workforce and funding requirements and sets out the expected expansion required for each workforce group. We will recruit approximately 330 additional IMHAs.
Aphra Brandreth
Does the Minister have any more detail on that? Is there a timeframe for recruiting these advocates and putting the training in place? That would help reassure the Committee that there is provision to ensure that the timing will fit with the introduction of the changes in the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
As has been discussed, as soon as the Bill gets Royal Assent we will launch an extensive consultation around the code of practice. The code of practice will cover everything from training to recruitment to capacity building, and the plan will be set out in the first annual written ministerial statement, which will take place one year after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford asked about children admitted informally. We are introducing a duty on hospital managers to inform informal patients of their right to a mental health advocate. We will set out the importance of independent mental health advocate representation for children and young people in the code of practice. That could include the importance of a proactive approach for hospital managers.
We will also describe in the code the new role for independent mental health advocates in relation to informal patients, including vulnerable in-patient groups, such as children and young people, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and people with a learning disability or autism.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon asked whether we have the money for it. The funding requirements will, I think, be related to our best estimate of likely workforce and funding requirements. If we are going for 330 additional IMHAs, the funding requirements will be defined by that number.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, asked whether it will be local authority funding. We are obliged to fund new burdens on local authorities to resource this expansion of the independent mental health advocates. He then asked a blizzard of additional questions; I got lost in the thread of them all. We will go through Hansard and write to him.
Stephen Kinnock
No, I have finished.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Independent mental health advocates
Dr Chambers
I think the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon has spent more time discussing our amendments than I have, so I would like to give him the opportunity to vote in favour of one of them.
Amendment proposed: 19, in schedule 3, page 91, line 13, after “patient” insert—
“or English qualifying informal patient under 18”— (Dr Chambers.)
This amendment extends the provision of opt-out advocacy services in England to informal inpatients under 18.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Kinnock
The clauses will amend section 132 of the Mental Health Act in relation to detained patients, and section 132A in relation to community patients, and insert a new provision in relation to conditionally discharged patients. They place a statutory duty on hospital managers to supply complaints information to detained patients, community patients and conditionally discharged respectively, as well as to their nominated person.
Patients, their family and carers have a right to complain about the treatment they receive, including care and treatment under the Mental Health Act. The patient’s rights to complain are enshrined in the NHS constitution. Although the code of practice currently sets out that information about complaints should be provided to patients when they are detained, there is no statutory duty to do so. Under the clauses, hospital managers will be required to provide information on how to make a complaint about: first, functions under the Bill; secondly, any medical treatment for mental disorder received during their detention; and thirdly, the outcome of any complaint about medical treatment. That includes providing information about how to make a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the mismanagement of complaints about medical treatment, where the person believes their complaint to another body—for instance the hospital or CQC—was not appropriately investigated.
Hospital managers must take practicable steps to ensure that patients have understood complaints procedures, and information about complaints must be provided both verbally and in writing. The duty requires that information must be provided as soon as practicable after the patient is first detained, when the section that they are detained under changes, when the detention is renewed, or every 12 months for restricted patients under part III of the 1983 Act. For community patients, a duty is triggered as soon as it is practical after being placed on a community treatment order and as soon as practical each time the community treatment order is renewed. For conditionally discharged patients, it is triggered as soon as practicable after being conditionally discharged. I commend clauses 42 to 44 to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
I rise to speak in favour of clauses 42, 43 and 44, which together strengthen the duty to inform patients—whether detained in the community or conditionally discharged—about how to make a complaint about their treatment and the outcome of that complaint. The Mental Health Act has long included duties to tell patients their rights, but too often that information has been patchy, hard to understand or buried in paperwork. The clauses tackle that by requiring clear, repeated information about not just detention, but treatment and the complaints process.
Clause 42 relates to information about complaints for detained patients. Section 132 of the Mental Health Act 1983 originally required hospitals to inform detained patients of their rights, but that was often inconsistently applied. This clause responds to long-standing concerns about transparency and patient empowerment, aligning with the broader goals of the Bill to enhance autonomy and dignity in mental health care. Specifically, there is an expanded duty of information. Hospital managers must now ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints, not only about their detention, but about their treatment, along with the outcomes of any complaints.
There are some timing requirements, i.e. that the information must be provided as soon as practicable after detention begins and be repeated annually for restricted patients, or after each section 20 report for others. That will improve patient’s awareness of their rights and how to seek redress. It will promote accountability and mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints, and support better outcomes by addressing grievances early and constructively.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome the strengthening of section 132 of the Mental Health Act in respect of information about complaints, as proposed in clauses 42 to 44.
Clause 42 deals with information about complaints for detained patients. Currently, through the code of practice, there is a requirement that hospital managers will pass on that information. They should do so both orally and in writing, ensuring that the information is accessible, including in easy-read format for people with learning disabilities. Hospital managers should also ensure that the information has been understood. The clause would amend section 132 of the Act by placing that statutory duty on hospital managers, supplying detained patients and the nominated person with the necessary information about complaints, and taking practicable steps to ensure that the information has been understood.
Proposed new subsection (2A) deals with the types of complaints covered by that duty. They include complaints about carrying out of functions under the Act and about medical treatment. Proposed new subsection (2A)(c) ensures that the statutory duty covers information about the patient’s right to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman about the maladministration of such complaints. Proposed new subsection (2B) sets out that the duty is triggered
“as soon as practicable after the commencement of the patient’s detention”.
That means that the duty will be triggered each time the section under which the patient is detained changes, and when the authority to detain under that section is renewed.
In respect of part III of the 1983 Act, which concerns restricted patients to whom automatic renewals do not apply, the duty will be triggered every 12 months from the start date of detention. As I mentioned earlier, much of that process is already expected to take place, but ensuring it takes place in future by making it a statutory duty is a sensible and welcome strengthening of that safeguard.
That is also the case for clause 43, which relates to information about complaints for community patients and seeks to amend section 132A of the 1983 Act. As a result of the clause’s changes, there will be a statutory duty on hospital managers to supply information about the complaints procedure, as set out in clause 42, to community patients and the nominated person. That will mean that the patient must be provided with complaints information as soon as practicable after they are placed under a community treatment order, and each time that community treatment order is renewed.
Clause 44 deals with information about complaints for conditionally discharged patients and inserts proposed new section 132B, which requires hospital managers to give complaints information to conditionally discharged restricted patients. The proposed new section states that such information must be provided before the patient leaves hospital, or as soon as possible when the patient is conditionally discharged. Patients must receive the information when they are first detained in the hospital, and again whenever they are conditionally discharged. As with clause 42, the hospital manager must ensure that the patient has received such information both orally and in writing, and that practical steps have been taken to ensure that the patient understands the information. A copy of the information must also be given to the nominated person within a reasonable timeframe, unless the patient has requested otherwise. I support the clauses, as the changes made by it will strengthen the Act.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to make a few brief remarks about clauses 42 to 44, which would amend the 1983 Act to place statutory duties on hospital managers to supply complaints information to both the patient and the nominated person in respect of detailed patients, patients subject to a CTO and conditionally discharged patients.
These are important clauses. The people concerned are potentially vulnerable individuals. They need to know that they have a voice in this process and feel empowered to speak out and complain, should they wish. There is a duty on hospital managers to ensure that detained patients understand how to make complaints. However, I ask the Minister how that duty will be checked and evaluated. We all agree that the ability to speak out to make a complaint is important, but we need to ensure that proper safeguards and parameters are in place on how that will happen.
I also welcome the provision requiring that the information must be provided as soon as is practicable. That is important to give patients confidence. The timing requirements will potentially make a huge difference. The journey of a patient may change rapidly over the course of their treatment, so not leaving it too long will potentially make a substantial difference to their ability to recover swiftly, and ensure that they have been able to speak out if they are concerned not just about their detainment but about the way that their treatment is being carried out, and the potential implications of that.
Like many of the measures that we have discussed, these clauses might have administrative implications. We need to ensure that we have fully considered and are able to put in place the necessary support for hospital managers to deal with complaints appropriately. It is important that if someone comes forward with a complaint, it can be dealt with swiftly.
As mentioned on some other matters, we need to ensure consistency for patients, so that they understand the information that they are being provided and that, whatever region they might live in or hospital they might be at, consistent information is provided. I would like the Minister’s reassurance on that point.
Overall, however, the clause improves patients’ awareness of their rights and how they can seek redress. I think we all agree that that is extremely important. It will promote accountability in mental health services by encouraging feedback and complaints. I would like reassurance of some oversight to ensure feedback on any complaints that come forward so that we identify where consistent issues come up, to provide better services not just to the individual but to future individuals. Overall, the clauses support better outcomes by addressing potential grievances and ensuring that they are addressed early and constructively, so I am supportive of them.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
You will be delighted to know that I will be mercifully brief, Mrs Harris, because I am broadly supportive of all three clauses. Having worked as a doctor in clinical practice, and as a barrister, I am cognisant of the importance of transparency, patient autonomy and procedural fairness, in particular with vulnerable patients who are often seen in a mental health care setting.
I welcome this trio of clauses, but I have some gentle challenges to put to the Minister for when he gets to his feet. First, how will data be captured on the information that is to be provided to patients and their families? What feedback mechanisms will be in place, not just for patients but for those who support them—their carers and families—and for clinicians, on the practicalities of how the system is working?
Sojan Joseph
I was a clinician and I practised on wards; patient records are electronic for staff. When staff complete the explanation of section 132 rights, they record that on the electronic patient records. Does the hon. Member agree that that would be a good place to get the data?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a very valid point. There is that mechanism, but this is also about ensuring that the quality of the information that has been imparted—not just the process of it being done—is recorded. An audit process must ensure that the important conversations and information are imparted in a way that the patient and their family understand, in sufficient detail and as part of a process whereby, if there are concerns or doubts, they can be addressed in a ready manner. I take his point that there are metrics by which to measure things, but it is not just about capturing data; it is about capturing quality data in order to ensure that that is being fulfilled.
To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury about regional variability, consistency across the board is important not only in the regions, but in the delivery methods and capacity that underpin this crucial service.
Finally, on potential confusion and legal information being communicated in inaccessible ways, it is important that legalese does not get in the way of clarity for individuals who will have to navigate the information. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how we can ensure that the information is imparted in an accessible way for all those concerned—importantly, not just for patients and their families, but for clinicians who have to impart the information. They need to feel comfortable navigating their way around what can often be a complex set of regulations and legislation.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
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
Hydrogen-powered Aviation
(1 day, 6 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
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered hydrogen powered aviation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I will start by thanking everyone who has come this morning to participate in this debate. This subject sits at the crossroads of three major challenges facing our country today: our climate ambitions, our pursuit of technological innovation and our desire to kickstart domestic industry.
As the Member of Parliament for North Somerset, my constituency is certainly no stranger to the aerospace industry. Since the pandemic, Bristol airport has emerged as one of the UK’s fastest-growing airports, now serving 10 million passengers a year, with plans to increase that to 15 million passengers a year by 2040. Although many of my constituents have expressed support for the potential for the 10,000 or so additional jobs such an expansion may bring to my local area, many more have expressed concern over how it can be squared against the airport’s aim to achieve net zero by 2030.
Last week, we saw the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill enter the House for its Second Reading. That Bill will do much to spur and support the nation’s sustainable aviation fuel sector, in which Bristol airport is already a leading light. I—and I have no doubt many Members in this room—would echo those sentiments. I am a strong supporter of sustainable aviation fuel, and I look forward to seeing the transformational effect it will have on aviation emissions in the years to come.
The Government have already clearly displayed their vision and leadership in this space, and set forth a sensible plan to bring about the maturity of this sector. That is why I wish to focus our debate today not on the technology of tomorrow, but on that of the day after. Hydrogen-powered aviation presents one of the few truly scalable zero-emission pathways for the future of aviation, allowing us to meet our net zero targets while simultaneously keeping flying affordable and accessible.
We currently find ourselves in a fortunate position. The UK is already home to some of the most innovative aerospace companies in the word. From Airbus, located near my old house in Filton—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove)—to Rolls-Royce in Derby, we have a wealth of expertise to draw on, with a track record of innovative success. Aviation is currently responsible for around 7% of emissions in the UK today, with that figure expected to rise to 16% by 2035 unless meaningful action is taken soon.
Although in recent years we have had great success in decarbonising our power generation, cars, heating and many other sectors, the stark reality is that aviation is one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise. Currently aviation is primarily fuelled by kerosene, and although great strides have been made in sustainable aviation fuel in recent years, there are currently no cost-competitive alternatives available. As the world continues on the inextricable path towards even greater levels of globalism and integration, the aviation industry’s ability to move people and goods swiftly across continents will only continue to grow in importance.
However, as aviation’s role in the global economy continues to grow, so will its contribution to global emissions, unless we have the foresight today to take the necessary steps for tomorrow and begin supporting the nascent hydrogen aviation industry. In my constituency, Bristol airport has shown real vision and leadership by taking a leading role in the Hydrogen in Aviation alliance, which has laid out a clear case for immediate action to secure our comparative advantage, not just for the betterment of our environment but for the economic prospects. That is a part of this debate that is not spoken about enough.
Many years ago, the UK was an early innovator and pioneer in the offshore wind sector, but a slow, disjointed deployment saw many of the manufacturing opportunities shift abroad to Europe, China and elsewhere. Today we find ourselves in a similar situation with hydrogen. The next 10 years will be critical: either we develop a coherent policy framework, which encourages private sector investment, or we will cede our leadership to the United States, China, the European Union and others, who are already heavily investing in hydrogen-powered aviation. By 2050, the global hydrogen economy is predicted to be worth around $8 trillion. Let us not make the mistake of the offshore wind sector again. Let us be leaders in this space, and so reap the rewards.
The west of England boasts the largest aerospace cluster in the UK. I recently had the privilege of visiting my former university in Bath, and the science park it has developed in tandem with the University of Bristol. They are doing excellent work to realise hydrogen’s potential to transform the aviation sector. Those twin pillars of south-west higher education are working closely with Airbus and Bristol airport as part of the Hydrogen South West group, which aims to cement the position of North Somerset, Bristol and the surrounding area as a national leader in the field.
During my visit to the science park it was made clear to me that although they are excited about the role that hydrogen has to play in the future of the aviation industry, the ever-shifting net zero policy landscape—especially the perceived lack of clarity from the Government on hydrogen’s future role—has handicapped the sector’s ability to draw in private investment. The Government must make it clear to the private sector that they do have faith in hydrogen’s ability to transform the aviation sector, and that early investment into the nascent industry will be rewarded in future.
According to data supplied by the sector’s trade association ADS, the global aviation industry could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050, even by today’s lacklustre transition plans. As we have seen with sustainable aviation fuel, the scaling up of production to those levels will require not just significant private and Government investment, but years to develop plans, build plants and train a sufficiently skilled workforce. It is imperative that we get moving on this issue today.
Although in one moment we must applaud the Government for their work on sustainable aviation fuel, in the next we must begin turning and then fixing their gaze towards hydrogen. The Government have already signalled support of the sector by announcing £100 million for the development of hydrogen planes through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme shortly after coming to power last July. In the autumn Budget, the Government announced almost £1 billion for the aerospace sector over the next five years. Similarly, in the spending review delivered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, £500 million was committed to support the development of hydrogen infrastructure.
Over the past year, however, I have had innumerable conversations with leading figures in the sector, who have told me time and again of significant anxiety as to whether the UK Government envisage hydrogen having a direct role in the aviation industry in the medium to long term. While other countries push ahead with hydrogen, rightly seeing it as a valuable export market, we run the risk of being left in their wake—or contrails—unless we get a move on and make clear to the industry our steadfast support.
The experience of transition to renewables taught us that although Government investment can catalyse partnerships with the private sector, it ultimately must fall to the private sector to be the driver of change. Before the private sector will start the engine, it falls to this House and this Government thoroughly to investigate this area, set sensible standards and support the development of the necessary infrastructure, to enable a hydrogen-powered aviation future. To that end, I eagerly look forward to hearing from the Minister how he intends to support the industry further in the critical 10 years to come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for leading the debate and setting the scene so well. It is a pleasure to see the Minister and shadow Minister in their places. I look forward to the Minister’s response and helpful answers to our questions, to ensure we are encouraged by this debate that benefits will come to our constituencies.
Hydrogen is an alternative that is becoming more widely explored. There is no doubt it could and must play a part in the UK’s contribution to net zero targets. The ultimate secret to reaching net zero targets is how to do so without adversely impacting our constituents. I am not a sceptic—I never have been. Some people might be sceptics, but I am not one of them. I recognise the importance of meeting the targets, and hydrogen is one way to do that. Alternative forms of energy are being used in many transport paths, so it is important that we are here today to discuss the progression of our aviation industry.
I want to mention some of the things that are happening in Northern Ireland. Undoubtedly, a progression to hydrogen rather than fossil fuels has its benefits in terms of the transport industry. There are zero carbon dioxide emissions. Hydrogen is attractive for long-haul flights and has faster refuelling mechanisms. Of course, cost implications are very important as we move forward. Any new technology is always costly at the start, but as it gets easier to do, the cost implications reduce. At this moment in time the implications are incredibly large. Airports across the UK will require massive infrastructure upgrades. Most planes will require to be redesigned with larger storage capacity and the freezing temperature of hydrogen must be considered, so there are cost implications there. But for every airport across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we can do it better together.
Companies across the UK such as Airbus, easyJet, Boeing and Wrightbus in NI have looked at and announced plans for hydrogen-powered aircraft and other modes of transport. We just need to look at the transition that was made back home in Northern Ireland by Wrightbus in Ballymena, who developed a green hydrogen production facility capable of powering up to 300 hydrogen buses daily. It has taken some time to get there, but it was on the cusp of something new, and I understand that now almost every bus in London is a Wrightbus, with potentially more across the country. Furthermore, Airbus has announced plans for a hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft by 2035. That is another indication of the timeline. easyJet successfully tested a hydrogen combustion engine in 2022. There have been many advances—small steps now, but great steps for the future as we look forward.
We have spoken a lot today about the importance of our aviation and aerospace sector to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When we look at transforming capabilities for the future, the key word is investment, so I am keen to get the Minister’s thoughts on how he sees that investment happening with all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the beneficiaries of that. We are very fortunate to have a Minister in place who is a friend of Northern Ireland and who regularly visits. He has had discussions with the Minister back home at the Assembly to formulate ideas and move forward positively and constructively.
The key phrase is investment in the sector. I look at companies such as Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast and in my constituency of Strangford, which offers world-class aerospace engineering capabilities but is in the middle of a “buyover” that guarantees nothing for Northern Irish jobs. In the Chamber last week, when I had an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about this, they were agreeable to the idea of meeting unions and people who could “buy over” to ensure the continuity of jobs across Northern Ireland. How can we possibly talk about investing in companies like this but offer nothing to preserve the future? It is really important that we get it all together in the right way. Perhaps this is a reminder to the relevant Ministers that issues like this will not go away, and that Government intervention to protect the future of our aviation sector is imperative.
There are roles in which all companies across the United Kingdom can play a part, small to large. All of us have a role to play. Some are more critical, but all of them are very helpful. For the likes of Northern Ireland, for instance, we have smaller airports that are perfect for short-haul early flight trials. We are very fortunate to have Belfast International, Belfast City and Londonderry airports, but they are all for short-haul and domestic flights, although there is an indication that next year there will be direct flights to the United States of America.
On early flight trials I have one thought. Ards airport is a small constituency airport—we have the Ulster flying club—and there are possibilities for using that for early trials. Why not? That shows that the reach of this debate can go even further. We have green targets that we are planning to meet. It would be fantastic if the UK could be a global leader in green aviation, but we must never underestimate the cost, the time and the infrastructure that are required.
There is no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to the aviation sector, but I look to him to get an idea of his plans and strategy for the future. That is the encouragement that I am looking for today arising from this debate, and I seek reassurances about people’s jobs in the aviation sector. We need to retain people with the relevant skills, so in the event of any changeovers—for instance, at Spirit AeroSystems back home—we must ensure that jobs are retained and encouraged. The industry would be nothing without the workers in it, who make it what it is, and Government intervention is required to maintain its success.
I look forward to seeing what the future looks like for hydrogen-powered aviation, and I have a very strong and positive hope—indeed, perhaps a vision—that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can showcase what we have to offer for the future of aviation, and particularly for hydrogen-powered aviation.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this timely and very important debate.
My constituency of Mansfield is just a stone’s throw away from East Midlands airport, which is one of the UK’s key freight and passenger hubs. It is important not only to our local economy, but to many of my constituents, who use the airport to get away on family holidays. With climate change being a significant concern to many of my constituents, and with the instability of hydrocarbon-based aviation fuel pricing as a result of numerous factors, including global conflict, I very much welcome the consideration of hydrogen-powered aviation as a practical and vital path towards sustainable flight.
The east midlands has always been at the heart of British industry and innovation, and now we must be at the forefront of clean technology. Aviation accounts for around 7% of our carbon emissions and the figure is growing, but rather than grounding its progress, we need to power it differently. Hydrogen offers us a really tangible solution: it produces zero carbon emissions at the point of use, and has great potential to fuel short and medium-haul flights by the mid-2030s—exactly the kinds of routes that operate out of East Midlands airport.
Hydrogen has real, tangible benefits over other approaches such as sustainable aviation fuel and battery power. We are already seeing British companies—including companies local to me in the east midlands, such as Rolls-Royce, and ZeroAvia in the south-west, which is working with East Midlands airport—investing in hydrogen engines. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to at least consider supporting that transition, not only to meet our climate targets but to protect and grow jobs in aviation, engineering and logistics in the east midlands.
Let us not forget that our constituents all want cleaner skies and to reach net zero, but they also want the opportunity to travel. Hydrogen-powered aviation can potentially deliver both, but to develop the technology to do that, we need the right investment in infrastructure, and particularly in research and development. We can turn regional airports into hubs of innovation that are important for the regions, and create a new export market in green aviation technology—that is not pie in the sky thinking. It will take some work to achieve it, but it is practical and necessary.
We should back British innovation and cleaner aviation. Let us ensure that the east midlands, Britain and the UK lead the world with this new, exciting technology.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate, which is particularly important for the west of England.
Hydrogen-powered flights have real potential to cut carbon emissions in a notoriously difficult to decarbonise industry, while still allowing people to enjoy flying around the world, as the aircraft would emit only water vapour. The industry needs support now, however, which means thinking about the technology, infrastructure and regulation.
Airbus, where many of my constituents work, is aiming for hydrogen-powered airliners by 2035. Its studies suggest that UK hydrogen aviation could support up to 110,000 jobs in this country, and we absolutely have the potential to show global leadership. When I discussed the ZEROe project on a visit to Airbus last year, it was trying to decide between hydrogen combustion and hydrogen fuel cells. It has now plumped for the latter, although it does not rule out direct combustion in the future. It and other manufacturers are working in collaboration with academia, and there is some excellent knowledge in this area in our local universities. We need to back investment in research, development and manufacturing infrastructure. Other companies such as GKN, which has a base in my constituency, are also looking at hydrogen.
The west of England has a long history of innovation in aviation, going back to the days of Sir George White; it has many things that co-ordinate to make it a place to invest. For example, just outside my constituency, we have the Bristol and Bath science park, and we have the national composites centre. Hydrogen molecules are very small, so containing it is a challenge, but that is where the national composites centre’s expertise can help. In the science park, the institute for advanced automotive propulsion systems is also looking at hydrogen.
Obviously, it is no good having hydrogen-fuelled aeroplanes if we do not have the hydrogen, so we need large-scale investment in green hydrogen. It is all very well having zero emissions on our flights, but if the electricity is being generated from non-low carbon power in the first place, there will still be associated emissions. As the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard a number of times in its inquiries, it is really important that the Government make a decision about the future use of hydrogen. Given that we will only ever be able to produce a finite amount of green hydrogen, I think we need to prioritise it for industries where there are no realistic alternatives, including aviation.
We need to be thinking about how we produce that energy, and again our area has something to offer the country, because we have the potential for new nuclear at Oldbury and we have the River Severn, where there was a recent commission on tidal power. We therefore have the means of producing green energy. We have expertise in all those areas, with excellent nuclear specialism in our local universities, the aviation expertise to develop its use in aviation, and the facilities that I described in the Bristol and Bath science park to help to tackle some of the problems associated with deploying the technology.
On infrastructure, we obviously need to think about not just how we are producing that energy, but how we are delivering it to airports and how we are storing it. Again, that comes back to the question about the future of the gas grid in this country—will it be repurposed for hydrogen at some point? Regulation and having the right regulatory environment are important. People are very aware that hydrogen is highly flammable, but we can make it safe by putting the right protocols in place.
Our 2024 manifesto set out taxation reform that would help to redirect people away from frequent high carbon flights. It is important that we give people a means of judging the carbon emissions from their flights. Many companies will be looking at their own net zero aims, and it is important that people understand the implications of their choices when flying.
Hydrogen-powered aviation has the potential to cut transport emissions and boost our economy through new jobs. The west of England is particularly well placed to support the industry. It is time to make sure that the regulatory environment is right and that limited public money is invested effectively.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate and for continuing the conversation that we have been having over the last couple of weeks about the future of aviation—something it is always a pleasure to talk about.
Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms. That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not.
In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels.
There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change. Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening.
Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment. The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft.
Britain’s aerospace sector is ready, but it lacks confidence that essential infrastructure exists, such as the hydrogen production that those aircraft will require. ADS, the UK trade association for aerospace, defence, security and space, estimates that global aviation could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050—3 million tonnes of which would be used in the UK. It is essential that we scale up the production of green hydrogen to meet that challenge, and enable the shift in the industry to take place. Investment is required in production, as is massive investment in refuelling systems and supply chains, as well as the planning approvals that are required to approve projects necessary for that development.
The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026.
ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology.
Having raised over $250 million and grown a team of more than 200 employees across Gloucestershire and London, ZeroAvia is already making a significant contribution to the aviation industry. It is currently targeting certifying with the CAA a hydrogen-electric powertrain for planes with up to 20 seats, with the target of it entering service next year. The step after that will be developing an engine for larger 40 to 80-seat aircraft by 2028. The certification will require investment in the CAA to provide the skills and expertise to evaluate and then certify the aircraft as safe.
The advantage of ZeroAvia’s approach is the ability for airlines to retrofit the engines into existing fleets. This is not a tale about a technology of the future. ZeroAvia has already performed several world-first breakthrough flight demonstrations of its powertrain technology from its base at Cotswold airport. ZeroAvia is an incredibly exciting new entry to the sector, but existing aviation giant Airbus has also seized the opportunity of hydrogen. Its plans are bigger and depend on more infrastructure; as a result, Airbus recently announced its ZEROe hydrogen-powered aircraft programme would be delayed by a decade because of concerns about the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen flight.
The ZEROe aircraft features an electric-propellor propulsion system powered by hydrogen fuel cells that uses the hydrogen to generate electricity on board through a chemical reaction, similar to the approach taken by ZeroAvia. The only by-product of this reaction is water, and when combined with green hydrogen production, the process is carbon-neutral. The ZEROe approach with propeller propulsion is the likely first-generation hydrogen powerplant type, replacing domestic and regional aircraft, like those ZeroAvia is already developing, for shorter flights.
That approach contrasts with the one Rolls Royce is taking with its project to modify existing technology engines to run on gaseous hydrogen, instead of requiring a conversion to electrical energy to power an onboard electric motor. Rolls showed the huge potential of that work back in 2022 when it successfully ran a modified AE 2100-A engine, which is a variant of the turboprop powerplant that equips the Saab 2000 regional airliner, which is a long-established and widely used regional turboprop.
The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops. The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations.
There are three approaches: eSAF, fuel cell to electrical production on the aircraft and direct hydrogen propulsion. They are all viable technologies and approaches that the market, industry and research will understand and develop for the appropriate sectors. For now, those projects are all being held back by infrastructure availability, and I call on the Minister to fix that. I welcome his Government’s July announcement of the commitment of over £100 million for the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft through the Aerospace Technology Institute, and nearly £1 billion over five years to support innovation in the aerospace sector. There is no denying that those are serious, positive moves, but they must be only the start. If we get sustainable aviation fuel right, the benefits for cities such as London will be enormous. Clean flights mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer days lost to sickness, and longer, healthier lives. Getting it right would also mean economic leadership, new green engineering jobs, revitalised manufacturing, and a chance for Britain to lead the global hydrogen economy.
Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H2 down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety. Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors.
I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon.
Unlike what we have heard from other hon. Members in this debate, this is absolutely not a call for flights to be grounded and Britain isolated. This is a call to fly smarter and cleaner, to back British science and leadership to build a better and more sustainable future. Aviation connects us to people, places and possibilities. It can drive innovation. It boosts economies and it brings the world closer together. With the right action, it can keep doing all of that without costing us our planet.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) not only on securing the debate but on setting out the case for hydrogen aviation so clearly in his opening remarks. The Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week was but the precursor to this Westminster Hall debate—this debate was trailed in that one. I also congratulate all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.
It is a pleasure to speak for His Majesty’s Opposition in this important debate on the policies of the Government of the United Kingdom on hydrogen-powered aviation. Aviation is a sector that underpins global connectivity, international trade, and regional economic growth, but its long-term sustainability requires bold innovation, and a clear policy framework that supports low-carbon propulsion technologies while enabling British industry to lead.
Let me be clear: hydrogen is not a hypothetical solution. It is a practical, viable and strategically critical path forward for decarbonising flight. The UK has a golden opportunity to lead the world in this technology, not just by developing aircraft but by creating the entire hydrogen aviation value chain, from production and distribution to propulsion and maintenance. When combusted purely, hydrogen emits only water vapour, unlike kerosene, obviously, which produces carbon dioxide. Moreover, unlike battery electric aircraft, hydrogen aviation scales better over distance and payload, making it suitable for not just short-term hops but future regional and potentially transcontinental routes. That is not only good for the planet, but good for Britain.
According to the Aerospace Technology Institute, the UK could generate up to £34 billion in GVA and support 60,000 jobs by 2050 through hydrogen powered aviation. That is thousands of skilled engineering, manufacturing and research and development roles across the country. These areas stand to benefit significantly from hydrogen aircraft production, airport infrastructure retrofitting and fuel supply chain development. In Bristol and Gloucestershire, Airbus and GKN Aerospace are already laying the groundwork for hydrogen propulsion and systems integration. In the midlands, particularly in Derby and Coventry, Rolls-Royce is developing hydrogen combustion engines in work that has the potential to sustain and expand our world leading turbo machinery industry. In Teesside, the Conservative Government-designated hydrogen transport hub is pioneering fuel production and logistics, with Teesside international airport poised to become a hydrogen aviation testbed. In Scotland, Prestwick airport is leading hydrogen aircraft trials and Aberdeen is already a recognised centre for hydrogen fuel development. Belfast, home to Spirit AeroSystems, is well positioned to play a central role in manufacturing structural components for the hydrogen aircraft of the future.
A successful future-focused aviation sector means more than environmental progress; it means greater reliability and connectivity for passengers, and competitive ticket prices driven by fuel efficiency. For business, it means faster, lower emission logistics, better access to export markets and the growth of regional airports as hubs for commerce and investment. There is an important distinction to be made here, and one that we in this place must be honest about. While hydrogen fuel cells offer lower energy losses and may suit smaller aircraft or drones, it is pure hydrogen combustion that offers the best chance of achieving decarbonisation for medium to large aircraft, especially within the constraints of airframe weight and power density. Combustion also enables more rapid retrofit of existing aircraft designs and is more compatible with current maintenance ecosystems and airport infrastructure. Simply put, hydrogen combustion is the most practical, scalable route for commercial aviation and the UK should be focusing investment accordingly.
It was the Conservatives in government who recognised that early on. Under the jet zero strategy established in 2022, we committed funding to Project FlyZero, supported by trials by ZeroAvia and Rolls-Royce. We ringfenced funding for hydrogen infrastructure at UK airports. We laid the groundwork for the SAF price mechanism that this current Government is carrying through with the SAF Bill. We established the hydrogen transport hub in Teesside, where our fantastic mayor Ben Houchen, now Lord Houchen, oversaw a combined £23 million funding package to kick-start the local hydrogen-based economy. We also made Britain one of the first countries to support regulatory frameworks for hydrogen-powered flight trials.
Turning to the new Government, the mantle has clearly democratically passed to them, and the test on whether hydrogen aviation can succeed lies with them. The promised expansion of the aerospace growth partnership, sadly, has been watered down. The Aerospace Technology Institute’s hydrogen propulsion roadmap seems to have stalled, and companies at the cutting edge, from Cranfield to Kemble to Prestwick, report difficulty in accessing follow-on support, despite clear potential and private co-investment. The Government must stop conflating hydrogen policy with overreliance on electric-only solutions, which simply cannot be scaled to long-haul aviation. A narrow vision such as that would be misguided; it is actively stifling British leadership in this vital sector. If we want to lead the next aviation revolution to match our leadership in jet engines with leadership in zero carbon propulsion, then ambition must be matched by action. That means committing long-term funding for hydrogen combustion propulsion research and development, providing meaningful and long-term support for airport hydrogen infrastructure trials, especially in regional hubs, accelerating the certification and regulatory pathway for hydrogen aircraft and aligning hydrogen production strategies with the wider UK aviation sector.
The hydrogen age is not coming. It is here, and unless the Government correct course, the opportunity to lead it will pass us by. The last Conservative Government laid the foundations for hydrogen-powered aviation. I very much hope that this Government, and this Minister, do not allow the UK to lose that legacy through indecision. I challenge the Minister, who is very thoughtful on this subject and has the best interests of aviation at heart, to ensure that hydrogen is part of that future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It was also a pleasure, as a young councillor, to serve under your leadership of Manchester city council in the early ’90s. As I said in a debate the other day, you were chairman of the airport that last built an international runway in the UK—the only one in 80 years. I learned a lot in that period, and I am always grateful to you.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) on securing an excellent first debate in Westminster Hall and thank other hon. Members for their contributions. Famously, my hon. Friend is a pharmacist by training and by trade; he actually lives in a village called Pill, which is probably the strongest case of nominative determinism I have come across in my political career. He is also a doughty champion for Bristol airport. He never fails to tackle me about the issue in the Lobby or the Chamber. The airport plays a crucial role in providing connectivity and enabling growth in the south-west, and I welcome the leading role that it has played in developing hydrogen, such as the recent Project Acorn trials, which demonstrated the safe use of zero emission ground handling equipment in an airside environment.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions on the SAF Bill last week. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke well about his passion for this issue, and mentioned that hydrogen fuel produces only water vapour. It is good for the environment, jobs and airports. It can help general and commercial aviation.
Upon coming into government, I had to take some tough decisions. The Jet Zero Council, established under the last Government, was reasonably ineffective. It hardly met and it was unwieldy; people said that it had become a talking shop with limited outcomes. I made big decisions to refocus it, narrow it down and ensure that it had tangible outcomes.
For all the groundwork that the Opposition spokesperson said that the last Government laid, we have had to make tough decisions. We are the Government that introduced the mandate for SAF, which came into law on 1 January this year, and in the first Session of this Parliament we are making decisions about the revenue certainty mechanism. I am grateful to all hon. Members who are supporting that, but we should have been doing this years ago. We now have a Government who are committed to making progress, and we will continue doing so.
As the Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill last week, the Government recognise the key role of the aviation sector in driving growth, and
“we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 1031.]
I want to see a future in which more passengers and goods fly while we transition to a greener aviation sector. In addition to introducing the SAF Bill, the Government have already established a SAF mandate, as I have said. The mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism will provide much-needed support to SAF producers, stimulating investment in domestic production, which we all want to see, by reducing financial risk and uncertainty for those producers and supporting the UK to become a world leader in sustainable fuel production. As I said in last week’s debate, the world is looking to us and asking us about our revenue certainty mechanism, because we are leading the world in that field.
As we all know, we are also acting to modernise our airspace. Earlier this month, we released a response to the consultation on a new UK airspace design service—UKADS—and support fund. UKADS will make flightpaths more direct and efficient, reducing unnecessary emissions and supporting flights with fewer delays.
Let us get to the subject in hand. I recognise the clear potential of hydrogen as a zero emission aviation fuel and what it could contribute towards greener aviation. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his customarily excellent speech, it produces zero CO2. He is right that it is costly, but we know that the costs will become competitive as we scale up. He speaks well of Spirit in his constituency and the workers who work there in this field. I pay tribute to him and them for what they do in Northern Ireland.
Given our world-leading aerospace sector, we should seek to capture in the UK the jobs and growth benefits emerging from these technologies. The Government have already acted to support the use of low-carbon hydrogen in aviation through the SAF mandate, with eligible hydrogen rewarded through the provision of tradeable SAF certificates. Innovation led by the sector is key, and I welcome the work by Airbus and GKN on hydrogen technology in the south-west and the support provided by academia, such as by Bath University. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young); the south-west is well placed in the R&D world for this technology. Given her work as a former leader of the council and her expertise in the tech sector, I welcome her valuable contribution to the debate.
We will continue to co-invest with industry on a range of R&D projects, which a number of Members raised, including the development of hydrogen aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned. As announced in the spending review, we will invest more than £3 billion in the next four years in the advanced manufacturing sector on zero emission vehicles, batteries and aerospace technologies. I join him in congratulating Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, which I visited while in opposition, on its work.
The Government will further set out our approach to the advanced manufacturing sector in the modern industrial strategy later this month. That will benefit from the UK-US trade deal signed today, under which there will be zero tariffs on UK aerospace trade with the United States. I am aware that aircraft developers are moving at pace, with ZeroAvia announcing plans last month for a manufacturing base in Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for mentioning it and for being a doughty champion for East Midlands airport near his constituency. He is right to mention the geopolitical situation. There are many reasons why we should make these changes, but energy security is one of them, given that we are in an increasingly uncertain world. He brings his previous tech experience to the debate, and I congratulate him on his contribution.
The wider sector should prepare for the adoption of this new technology and, to support those whole-system changes, the Government, the aviation and aerospace sector, and academia must work together. The Jet Zero Taskforce that I have established is a key focus for that collaboration, and I am pleased to co-chair the expert group alongside the Minister for Industry. Importantly, one of the task and finish groups of the Jet Zero Taskforce is reviewing barriers to the commercial operation of hydrogen aircraft. The group will report on its findings in the autumn, and I look forward to considering them closely.
As the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate said, regulation is critical. Improving regulation in the UK, and ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment, is an essential part of the Government’s growth mission and of delivering on the plan for change. For that reason, in March the Chancellor announced that in the current financial year the Department for Transport will fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s hydrogen in aviation regulatory challenge. This work is helping the CAA to collaborate with innovative companies through regulatory sandboxes, in order to develop a proportionate regulatory framework for them.
Finally, I will touch on the production of low-carbon hydrogen, which is essential not only for aviation but for the wider economy. We have strong domestic expertise and favourable geology and infrastructure to develop a thriving low-carbon hydrogen sector in the UK. We are delivering real projects to kick-start the UK’s hydrogen economy, as demonstrated by the recently signed contracts for projects that were successful in the first hydrogen allocation round.
Later this year, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will publish a refreshed hydrogen strategy to ensure that hydrogen achieves its unique role in the Government’s clean energy superpower and growth missions. Just last week, the Government announced over £500 million to develop the UK’s first regional hydrogen transport and storage network, boosting industrial regions such as Merseyside, Teesside and the Humber.
The week of the international Paris air show is an important time to reflect on the progress that we are making towards a greener aviation sector. I therefore reiterate my ambition on this important matter, as well as my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for securing today’s debate and to other hon. Members for contributing to it.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I, too, thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It was fantastic to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the importance of mitigating any impact of this change on constituents and of challenging scepticism about hydrogen’s role. He is definitely on the bus when it comes to hydrogen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) is a champion of his local airport and of green hydrogen, which offers us strategic energy independence and jobs while also helping us to meet climate targets. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) talked about the innovation history in the west of England, a region that she said is up for the challenges of hydrogen while prioritising change in aviation.
Front Benchers made a number of important points, too, including about the risk of doing nothing for our ability to meet our climate targets; the skills needed to reflect the changes to regulation to go alongside the Government’s announced funding; the need for a long-term plan to drive investment; the fact that hydrogen is good for the planet and good for Britain; the role of the Government in providing leadership in this hydrogen age, not only in the UK but internationally; and the effect of a refocused Jet Zero Council on progress on catching up in order to meet our plans for a greener aviation sector. I also welcome the UK-US trade deal and its potential benefits for the nascent hydrogen economy. I thank all the relevant Members for bringing those points to the fore; I am certain that the Minister has heard them and will take them away.
We have heard today about the extraordinary opportunities across the country that the development of the aviation sector might bring. I have seen at first hand in my constituency of North Somerset that it is an incredibly exciting sector, which has long been at the cutting edge of innovation in this country; hydrogen-powered aviation is just the latest link in a chain stretching back over 100 years.
I get the sense that we are unified behind hydrogen-powered aviation. We all agree on the need to reach our legally binding net zero targets, and that we must do so in a way that maintains the affordability and accessibility of the modern aviation industry. I believe that hydrogen-powered aviation is the answer. Down the line, we might disagree on some minor tactical points, but so long as we agree on the overarching aim and strategy, I believe that we can get there.
Realising the potential of hydrogen-powered aviation is incredibly important, not just for the long-term regional economic prospects of constituencies such as mine, in which Bristol airport plays such a key role in our local economy, but for our nation as a whole. As we have heard, the aviation industry supports over 1.6 million jobs across our country and contributes over £120 billion to our economy every year. While we are here to recognise its contributions to our emissions, I think we agree on its importance to our future economic growth and, therefore, on the need to support its decarbonisation while not imperilling its expected strong growth.
I thank Members again for their contributions. I look forward to seeing how the sector continues to develop in the years to come. As they say, the sky’s the limit.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered hydrogen powered aviation.
Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Cramlington and Killingworth constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to debate this important issue and to see the Minister for future of roads. It will come as no surprise to her that I will take the opportunity to talk about the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts in my constituency. We have become pen pals on this issue and I thank her for her responses and for meeting me about it.
I start by warmly welcoming the Government’s recent announcements in the regional growth statement, with £1.8 billion secured for the north-east; the emphasis on delivering capital projects in the spending review; and most importantly, the announcement on the Green Book. That will support transport infrastructure investment in communities such as mine in Northumberland, North Tyneside and Newcastle.
For too long under the Conservatives’ Green Book we were disadvantaged—missing out on the investment we deserve due to outdated formulas. Those recent announcements show a Government committed to long-term growth and investment. I want that to be used to unlock the enormous potential of my communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. Before she was elected, she had a scheme that she wished to happen. Now, as an MP, she has the opportunity to push it forward, and she will hopefully get a response from a sympathetic Minister. Does she agree that if that infrastructure is not in place, it will hold back economic growth in her constituency? It is important to move that project forward, because with that every other project can move forward.
Emma Foody
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member—it is as if he has seen the key points of my speech. This is a critical piece of infrastructure in my area for all the reasons he said and more.
One such game-changing project for the north-east would be the upgrading of the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts. Those who do not know about these roundabouts have never heard me speak in this place, because I talk about them a lot. Moor Farm is a major, strategic six-armed roundabout that links the A19, A1 and A189 and sits to the south of Northumberland, on the border with North Tyneside. This heavily congested and well used roundabout is a key gateway across south-east Northumberland to the Northumbria specialist emergency care hospital in Cramlington and to the new data centre in Cambois that the Government have been pivotal in supporting.
Seaton Burn links Northumberland and North Tyneside to the A1 and on through to Newcastle, as well as providing links to south-west Cramlington, an area of significant housing development, and the villages to the north-west of North Tyneside. These critical pieces of infrastructure form part of the south-east Northumberland corridor, as well being a key link to Blyth, Killingworth in North Tyneside, and Newcastle. Both roundabouts sit on the A19, which is of strategic importance to the north-east more widely, linking to the Port of Tyne, South Tyneside and Sunderland, and to key employment sites such as Cobalt Park, Follingsby Park and the International Advanced Manufacturing Park.
In earlier road investment strategies, Silverlink and Testo’s roundabouts, further south on the A19, have been upgraded. Those earlier works significantly improved traffic flows on the A19 through the north-east to south-east Northumberland. It is now possible to travel north on the A19 from Thirsk in North Yorkshire all the way to south-east Northumberland without hitting an at-grade junction—until Moor Farm roundabout. Surely, now is the time to finish the job and complete the junctions to the end of the A19 at Seaton Burn.
My area has seen significant housing developments in recent years, including estates such as St Nicholas Manor, the Fairways and West Meadows in Cramlington, and Backworth Park in North Tyneside, with future sites including Killingworth Moor and Murton Gap—all of which add pressure to the roundabouts. In 2022, the section of the A19 east of the Seaton Burn junction had an annual average daily flow of 44,300 motor vehicles, while the section of the A19 east of Moor Farm had an annual average daily flow of 33,900.
The result is that the roundabouts are past breaking point. Do not just take my word for it; the Department for Transport’s own statistics show that, between 2021 and 2024, there was an 87% increase in delays through the northbound A19 section of Moor Farm, and a 36% increase southwards. The A19 section of Seaton Burn saw a 31% increase during the same period, which has a knock-on impact on the A1, with an 18% increase in delays joining Seaton Burn on the A1 northbound.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important and powerful speech about the significance of local road infrastructure. She mentions the A1, which is in my constituency, and I know Moor Farm roundabout well. Does she agree that as the Government make a massive investment in local transport, we really have to think about investing in key junctions up and down the A19 and the A1 so that we can improve road safety and efficiency for everyone concerned?
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact that such infrastructure has, not just on people in my constituency but on those across Northumberland and North Tyneside. His point about the A1 is well made, and I was about to move on to the fact that delays at the Seaton Burn and Moor Farm roundabouts have increased by 59% because of the traffic back-up on that section of the A1.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, which is particularly important for us in Northumberland—we quite often get left behind, don’t we? People are frightened to use the Moor Farm roundabout, and they will take different routes to avoid it. Does she agree that the issue will become even more critical once we get the £10 billion investment in the data centre in Cambois, which is in my constituency, as well as the investment in the Energy Central project in Blyth and Ashington, and in the Port of Blyth? We need investment in the Moor Farm roundabout for individuals, for residents, for businesses and for the future development of our wonderful area.
Emma Foody
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This investment is critical now, but if we want to see the growth that we need in business and in housing developments for our constituents in future, it is essential that we have these upgrades.
National Highways has confirmed that Moor Farm has a volume over capacity of 104% at both the morning and afternoon peaks. The agency’s own classification is that Moor Farm is oversaturated, and the frequent accidents and breakdowns can lead to congestion for literally miles. Barely a week goes by without such incidents, and it is local people and businesses who pay the price. The Carabao cup-winning Newcastle United hero Dan Burn recently had to step in to help a stranded vehicle on Moor Farm roundabout. Although I have every confidence in Dan Burn on the pitch, he cannot be there every day to save the day on Moor Farm roundabout.
In all seriousness, the current congestion causes misery for commuters and businesses, and without support and investment, the situation will only continue to get worse. It is for that reason that improvements have been drawn up, and Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts are being assessed as part of the next round of the road investment strategy. Their importance is also recognised by all local parties, including Northumberland county council, North Tyneside council, Newcastle city council and, indeed, the North East combined authority.
The north-east devolution deal, signed in 2024, stated:
“The government recognises the area’s priorities for improvements to the Strategic Road Network…such as the upgrading of A19 junctions North of Newcastle (Moor Farm…and…Seaton Burn).”
The north-east growth plan further recognises that upgrades on the A19 at Moor Farm and Seaton Burn are an investment in infrastructure priorities. The Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, has stated that the roundabouts sit on one of the region’s key transport corridors, and that it is “of strategic importance” to the north-east that they are upgraded. As Moor Farm and Seaton Burn sit on the strategic road network, however, the funding and responsibility sit with the Department for Transport and National Highways. Therefore, they cannot be upgraded through devolved funding to the North East combined authority.
I have touched on the nightmare that the current roundabouts are causing for local people, but it is not only that; as has been mentioned, they are holding back businesses, growth and investment in my communities. That has a direct impact on my constituents’ quality of life, because it puts at risk our ability to support the Government in their missions to deliver on growth and housing. Northumberland county council has warned that improvements to the junctions are critical to future growth aspirations.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Let me take the debate from the north-east to the south-east and Kent. The story that the hon. Lady is telling is very similar to that of the A21 Kippings Cross junction in my constituency. Of course, we have the opposite problem: the houses have all gone in, but none of the infrastructure has been built. Now that the spending review is giving lots of money to northern constituencies—I do follow her argument that they have been under-invested in for some time—what is there for the south-east? Where does the balance lie in catching up on the infrastructure that has not been built in the south-east, while all the houses have been built?
Emma Foody
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s advocacy for his communities. However, I am afraid that communities like mine have missed out year after year after year. No matter who the Prime Minister of the previous Conservative Government was, they never put the infrastructure or the investment that was required into the north-east; finally we have a Government who are prioritising that, and I am afraid I am never going to argue against it.
Without the improvements to these roundabouts, Northumberland county council warns that they will remain a “significant constraint” on economic growth in south-east Northumberland, while North Tyneside council warns there is a “very real risk” that significant housing and economic growth, in line with national policy, cannot be delivered without investment into this critical highway infrastructure. There is also real risk that blocks placed by National Highways due to congestion affect the ability to produce a local plan and meet housing need across North Tyneside, with the Mayor of the North East adding:
“The lack of capacity is now constraining much needed plans for housing and economic development”.
South-east Northumberland is a key regional and national corridor for growth, including the Port of Blyth and Northumberland Energy Park, which will house the £10 billion data centre at Cambois. Businesses and local stakeholders have spoken to me ahead of the debate about their frustration and have provided real world examples.
Miller UK, which is headquartered in Cramlington, manufactures and supplies excavator buckets and attachments across the UK and the world. It has a significant number of trucks delivered on a daily basis, and it set out that
“Moor farm congestion impacts on delivery times and leads to increased running costs”.
Fergusons Transport is a logistics firm based in Dudley in North Tyneside, and it similarly expressed frustration at the delays, capacity and increased emissions. It added:
“This outdated infrastructure is holding our region back”.
George Smith produces exceptional upholstered furniture from its Cramlington factory, which is sold across the world. It has lost staff due to the frustrations of a commute involving Moor Farm, and said:
“A properly designed and delivered solution at Moor Farm would make a meaningful difference to our ability to attract and retain staff”.
Similarly, RENOLIT is a global family-owned specialist in high-quality plastic films and polymer solutions that is based in Cramlington. It also stressed the importance of delivering upgrades.
What is the cost of missed opportunities? There are the developments and investment that have not come forward, or are being held back, because of concerns that congestion at Moor Farm will lead to applications being blocked or that the mitigation costs are too high. Those missed opportunities are jobs and homes for local people that may be invested elsewhere, or indeed not at all.
I have said before that Moor Farm and Seaton Burn are holding back growth, investment and opportunity, so how can the Government support my region and community in getting those long-overdue upgrades? The Department for Transport and National Highways assessed the business case for the roundabouts in the latest road investment strategy pipeline. Under the previous Conservative Government’s Green Book criteria, they were found to be low or poor value for money. However, this assessment has been challenged by local councils and the North East combined authority, which highlighted that the assessment used traffic data from 2019.
As I said earlier, the Department for Transport’s own figures show that there have been significant increases in delays in recent years, yet that data was not used for the assessment, and the assessment also did not take into account all the housing developments in the pipeline. We are in a Catch-22 situation where only some future developments, whether employment or housing, are being assessed, yet there are business and development opportunities on key sites in Northumberland and North Tyneside that are not being brought forward due to the lack of certainty about whether they will be blocked or incur additional costs due to the roundabouts’ capacity constraints.
We know that assessments of the outcomes of investments in the north-east have significantly undervalued the impact before. Take the recent reopening of the Northumberland line in December 2024. Initially, usage was expected to be 50,000 by Easter 2025, yet with only some of the stations open to date, including Seaton Delaval in my constituency, figures show that 250,000 journeys have been made—five times the expected number of passenger journeys. Investment in infrastructure delivers results, and I have no doubt that with Moor Farm and Seaton Burn we would, similarly, see substantially more benefits delivered than the assessment implies.
That is precisely why the Government’s review and changes to the Green Book are so vital. A move to a place-based business case is absolutely correct, and for Moor Farm and Seaton Burn, it cannot come soon enough. From Conservative-led Northumberland to the Labour Mayor of North Tyneside, Karen Clark, and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness, and local Labour MPs, we are universally agreed: to unlock growth, support business and finally end the misery for local residents in south-east Northumberland, north Tyneside and the wider north-east, these upgrades are essential.
The Government are right to place these decisions in the hands of those who know our communities best, and what delivers for them. I have previously asked, as has the North East combined authority, for this scheme to be judged as a test case for a new methodology for the Green Book. With the changes to the Green Book and the welcome move to place-based business cases, could the A19 north of Newcastle scheme be the test case for new methodology? With the growth that would be unlocked by bringing the scheme forward, overlooked in the previous methodology, will the Department for Transport work with local stakeholders to test this?
Our Government have rightly embraced devolution. Given the importance placed on these junctions to local stakeholders, and the fact that this was specifically referenced in both the deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan, what weight is placed on this in the road investment strategy assessment? What conversations have taken place between the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, given that local plan and housing targets could be at risk if this barrier is not removed? Now that the spending review has been announced, what is the timeframe for a decision on the next round of road investment strategy and the projects identified to go forward? Finally, despite the misinformation put out by Conservative councillors in Northumberland, can the Minister confirm that, under the previous Government, no funding had been awarded for improvements at the roundabouts, and no money for this project has been withdrawn?
The Government have ambitious missions to deliver growth and build the houses that our country needs. Cramlington and Killingworth, and the wider north-east, stand ready to support delivery, but right now the situation at Moor Farm and Seaton Burn acts as a blocker to growth, causing misery to residents and commuters and holding back investment. The voices of local people, business, councils and elected representatives is clear: we need these key junctions to be upgraded. They are holding back the enormous potential of the communities that I represent. Investing here and upgrading the roundabouts can help to deliver our missions, and I hope that this critical investment will be brought forward. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how we can work together to achieve that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I know how committed she has been to raising the importance of transport infrastructure in her constituency, frankly at every opportunity. Today, she has set out very clearly the challenges for her constituents and the communities that she represents. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Government’s ambitions.
Reliable transport infrastructure is vital to everyone’s daily life, whether it is connecting communities, family and friends, providing access to jobs and training, or moving goods. It can boost productivity by helping firms to cluster and innovate, unlocking land for housing and development, and making places more attractive to live, work and invest in. The Government recognise the challenges facing communities such as Cramlington and Killingworth, and today I will outline what we are doing to maintain and renew our infrastructure, protect vital public transport services and invest in the long-term future of our transport system.
We recognise the long-standing aspirations of local leaders, and by devolving power and decision making from Whitehall we are ensuring that local decisions are taken at the right level. I commend Mayor Kim McGuinness on her ambitions and vision for the north-east. The Government are backing those ambitions with real support, as my hon. Friend will be aware. At last week’s spending review, we outlined our commitment to the protection of vital public transport services and the maintenance of our road and rail networks. That reflects the Government’s recognition of the essential role that transport plays in driving economic growth, regional development and public service delivery.
Through the transport for city region settlements, eligible mayoral combined authorities will receive dedicated funding to deliver key local projects. The North East combined authority, NECA, will receive £1.8 billion from the TCR settlement between 2027 and 2032. That builds on the £573 million already provided from the first round of city region sustainable transport settlements.
Ian Lavery
I enjoyed the company of my hon. Friend the Minister in Cowpen Road in Blyth not too many months ago. Does she share my frustration, amazement and disbelief in Northumberland county council for criticising this Government for investment in transport infrastructure, when the A1 dualling has been announced more times than I can remember, and the Blyth relief road is waiting for investment. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing in 14 years; after every spending review, they would announce that they would pay for this and that, but it never happened. Yet, after mere months, Northumberland county council are criticising every decision that this Government have made. This Government will make a real difference to the transport infrastructure in Northumberland.
Lilian Greenwood
As my hon. Friend says, the last Government were good at making announcements, and very poor at putting real money behind those announcements. We are determined to do something very different. This unprecedented long-term funding certainty will enable enhancements and renewal of local transport networks, based on local priorities, helping to drive growth and productivity, support the delivery of new homes and decarbonise local transport networks.
I am aware of the specific concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth about the road infrastructure in her constituency, particularly the Moor Farm and Seaton Burn roundabouts, as well as the challenges that need to be addressed around congestion and the delays impacting residents and businesses. As part of last week’s spending review, the Government announced £24 billion of capital funding between 2026 and 2030 to maintain and improve motorways and local roads across the country. That funding will allow National Highways and local authorities to deliver faster, safer and more reliable journeys. Already this year, the north-east has been provided with an extra £22 million for local roads maintenance. The opportunities for new enhancements to the strategic road network will be considered in due course, as part of the future road investment strategy, which will start from 1 April next year.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for North Northumberland (David Smith) and Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for highlighting the needs and challenges of their communities. Now that the spending review has been completed, we will take decisions on how best to spend that money on both strategic and local roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked some specific questions, which I will try to go through. As she rightly noted, on 11 June, alongside the spending review, the findings of the Green Book review were published. They sought to understand whether it is being used in a way that ensures a fair, objective and transparent appraisal of proposals across the country. As a Department, we will work with Treasury analysts to develop and embed any changes to the Green Book.
A new place-based business case taskforce will be established to define objectives for a particular place and bring together the relevant interventions that are needed to achieve objectives across different policy areas. This is about making sure that places like the north-east get their fair share of transport investment. The taskforce will also feature participants from local and regional government, as well as other Government Departments, and will identify appropriate test cases for place-based business cases, and what that means for existing proposals in due course. I note that my hon. Friend got her bid in early.
The deeper devolution deal and the north-east growth plan will allow the combined authority to enter into agreements with Government, other local authorities and National Highways to determine shared priorities for the strategic and key road networks. This closer working relationship, and strategies such as the north-east growth plan, will be an important consideration in the prioritisation of enhancements to the strategic road network in the north-east.
On local plans and housing targets, our Department has a close working relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government on a range of transport matters to support our ambitious goals for housing. The successful implementation of local plans is a key part of ensuring development in the right places. Local authorities are encouraged to develop plans in sustainable locations that are not wholly reliant on significant investment in the strategic road network. I recognise that in some cases that is hard to avoid, and it is essential that issues such as constraints on growth form part of the assessment of individual schemes, as my hon. Friend said, and wider investment planning for the network.
On the spending review, schemes that are in the RIS pipeline, such as the A19 north of Newcastle scheme, are being considered for possible delivery beyond 2030. The Department expects to reconfirm those schemes that remain in the pipeline, and they will continue to be developed during the next period, when RIS3 is published early next year. I heard the points that my hon. Friend made about how the pressures on the network may have changed in recent times.
I will just touch on the point about local councillors. As with all schemes in the RIS pipeline, the proposals are funded for their development stages only, and there has been no commitment and no funding for their full delivery at any stage. To say otherwise is simply untrue.
In addition to considerations on the strategic road network, it is vital that we improve public transport connectivity. We are driving forward wider regional transport reforms, including rail upgrades and the resources and powers to deliver better buses as we look to build a modern, integrated public transport system. My hon. Friend highlighted the difference that investment in local rail is already making in her region. This year, we are providing NECA with £24 million to support and improve bus services by putting power over local bus services back into the hands of local leaders. That will help to ensure we meet the needs of the communities that rely on them, while protecting socially and economically necessary services. I understand that Mayor McGuinness is exploring franchising options that, if taken forward, would ensure that local bus networks across the north-east can be designed to work better for the people who rely on those services.
We have also just confirmed that from next year, we will be providing £900 million a year to maintain and improve bus services across the country, ensuring that they continue to be affordable and accessible to all. As part of the Government’s clean energy mission, we are also committed to decarbonising transport. The spending review confirmed £1.8 billion to support the uptake of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, including the provision of charging infrastructure along the strategic road network in England.
Active travel also plays a crucial role in the mission, and last week we were pleased to announce a further £616 million nationally to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure, and the north-east is already benefiting from more than £7 million this year to support the development of active travel facilities.
Our communities deserve transport infrastructure that supports growth, enhances mobility and ensures sustainability. The Government will shortly publish our 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will set out a long-term plan for how infrastructure projects are planned and delivered. Today’s contributions will help us as we make decisions in the weeks, months and years ahead. We remain dedicated to delivering improvements that will make a real difference to people’s lives, including in the constituencies of my hon. Friends in the north-east. Through investment, innovation and engagement with local leaders, we will continue to transform transport infrastructure for the better. I thank all my hon. Friends for the cases they have made, making sure that I understand the needs and challenges faced by communities in their area. I look forward to working with them as we go forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
(1 day, 6 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
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by
“deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had
“plausible rights to protection from genocide”,
which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.
The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services.
Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House on the Crime and Policing Bill—the first of a number. We will suspend the sitting for 45 minutes.
Ellie Chowns
For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Parliamentary Private Secretary is here, and the Minister has just arrived.
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous. As I was saying before the Divisions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific beyond imagining. Oxfam summarised it as follows:
“The Israeli military has killed over 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of children. Entire families and neighbourhoods have been destroyed…Israel is blocking all but a trickle of life-saving aid into Gaza - people are struggling to access basics like food, water, medicine and shelter… All of Gaza is at risk of a manmade famine. Starvation is widespread, and children and families are already dying from hunger…Israel has cut electricity to Gaza’s main desalination plant that supplied clean water to around 500,000 people.”
Last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the territory was:
“The only defined area—a country or defined territory within a country—where you have the entire population at risk of famine. One hundred per cent of the population at risk of famine…Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth.”
It seems clear that what the world is witnessing, in real time, is the continued cruel and inhumane policy of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and collective punishment. We see this daily.
The BBC reported today that 51 Palestinians were killed today while waiting for flour at a Gaza aid site. This all happened since the ICJ’s 2024 assessment that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If that risk existed then, it has existed every day since, and it is now absolutely undeniable. However, the UK Government’s actions and choices do not appear to recognise that risk, and it is not clear what they have done, if anything, to assess the risk of genocide before making policy decisions.
Amnesty International has done that work, however. It argues that there is evidence of a “calculated” plan to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians in Gaza, and it concludes that factors that include the obstruction or denial of lifesaving goods and humanitarian aid, the killing of civilians, damage and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, and the restriction of power supplies taken together constitute genocide.
I do not have enough time to cover the extent to which all the tests are being met, but I do not think the Minister or any other Member can possibly be unaware that the Israeli military has targeted hospitals, refugee camps and schools, with multiple generations of families wiped out because of direct or indiscriminate attacks. They cannot be unaware of the vast damage and destruction inflicted on critical infrastructure, including essential parts of the food production system; hundreds of thousands of residential homes; water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; roads and energy infrastructure. No one can be unaware of how the Israeli authorities have issued large numbers of the civilian population in Gaza with evacuation orders that have caused repeated mass forced displacement under utterly unsafe and inhumane conditions, that Gaza has been under electricity blackout since the 11 October 2023, that power supplies have repeatedly been used as weapons of war, or that in March 2025 Israel shut off the electricity supply to a desalination plant for drinking water.
That is all occurring against a backdrop of well-documented statements from Israel’s political and military leadership that indicate a pattern of dehumanising, racist and derogatory rhetoric against Palestinians, which escalated significantly after the horrific and utterly inexcusable terror attacks of 7 October. That rhetoric from the Israeli Government includes statements calling for, or justifying, genocidal acts.
Consider, too, the other violations of international law that, as stated by Amnesty International, at the very least point to potential genocidal intent, such as incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinians from Gaza, and the widespread destruction of cultural, historical and religious sites, including after Israel had already gained military control over them and where there was no apparent military necessity. Those are just some of the factors considered by Amnesty International in reaching its conclusion that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The UK Government have been crystal clear that it is for the international courts to determine whether or not genocide is happening in Gaza. I do not agree, but that is anyway irrelevant to the UK’s obligation under the genocide convention to act to prevent genocide. By definition, that must happen before it is established that a genocide has taken place. Indeed, the ICJ established in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the threshold for taking action to prevent is where there is a “serious risk” that genocide might take place. Therefore, the UK has a clear and legal obligation to act to prevent genocide, along with all other signatories of the United Nations genocide convention under article I of the convention. This should not wait for a court determination; that will be too late.
Indeed, that argument was the basis on which South Africa brought its case to the ICJ, and it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law if prevention hinges on genocide being conclusively proven in court, by which time the targeted group in question may have been wiped out. On 14 May 2025, the Minister seemed to recognise that point and asserted that this Government
“have not waited for…the determination of international courts, to take action.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]
He referred to the suspension of some arms licences to Israel and the sanctioning of some individual settlers, and even two individual Israeli Ministers, as examples of action that has been taken. While that is hugely welcome, I respectfully note that these actions do not amount to doing everything possible to prevent genocide.
Indeed, the implication of the Government’s position is that, because the courts have not made a genocide determination yet, they are not required to take a level of action that would constitute meaningful prevention, such as a full arms embargo, full sanctions against military and political leaders, a complete ban on all military co-operation, the suspension of the existing trade agreement, a ban on settlement goods and so on.
The Government will not even name the genocide in Gaza, but that is not the point I want to dwell on in this debate. Rather, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the UK Government are doing to assess the risk of genocide and to determine whether there is any potential that it might be happening in Gaza, because that should surely be informing every single decision they make in relation to Gaza.
The ICJ has been very clear that the risk of genocide is plausible. A September 2024 UN special committee warned that
“the policies and practices of Israel…are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”
The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, found that
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating”
that Israel has committed genocide
“has been met.”
Even if the UK does not formally recognise the assessment made by Amnesty International, the evidence accumulated must surely point to a possibility. For a responsible signatory to the genocide convention, that possibility is everything, because without having conducted an assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza, I fail to see how the UK can carry out its legal duty to prevent. An assessment of risk is also fundamental to any determination of whether the UK may be complicit in any genocide—for example, by continuing to provide F-35 parts via the global supply pool, which are used in attacks on civilians in Gaza.
Although I welcome the publication of a summary of the assessment process and decisions that led to the suspension on 22 September 2024 of some arms export licences, the assessment was limited in scope. It has three short sections entitled “humanitarian”, “treatment of detainees” and “conduct of hostilities”. It was concerned solely with whether UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law—IHL. There is no reference, for example, to forced displacement, the deliberate restriction of power supplies, or genocidal encouragement, incitement or intent. As such, that assessment falls far short of an assessment of the risk of genocide. Parliament has so far struggled to get a straight answer on whether such an assessment has been conducted, let alone get any assessment published, if it does exist.
On 6 May, during an oral statement on the middle east, my Green colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), explicitly asked the Minister:
“When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?”
This was the Minister's response:
“We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]
On 14 May, replying to an urgent question in the House, the Minister advised that there were ongoing assessments in relation to international humanitarian law, and that these considered all the relevant tests. He specifically cited the genocide convention when making that point. The following day, I used a written question to ask for the most recent risk assessment to be published. The reply I received on 3 June referred me not to an assessment of the risk of genocide, but back to the Government statement of 2 September in relation to export licences. The statement, which is definitely not an assessment of the risk of genocide and which was made more than six months ago, begs the question: has there been no more recent assessment? Has there been any assessment of the risk of genocide?
The Government’s submission in Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade suggests that such an assessment does exist. It stated that the FCDO’s assessment and the Government’s conclusion is that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That was their assessment in 2024.
I asked about that again in an oral question to the Minister on 4 June, the day after his unilluminating written reply to me. I asked very specifically if he would publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay. His response indicated that there has in fact been no genocide risk assessment. He said,
“the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there was a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]
Again, that refers back to the assessment, which is not an assessment of a risk of genocide.
In the meantime, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) asked a written question, which elicited a response confirming that there have been regular IHL assessments since the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023, and that these assessments are continuous, with the latest due to be finalised before the end of the month. What still has not been confirmed is whether these include an assessment of the risk of genocide.
My purpose in securing this debate is simple. I want to know whether the UK Government have carried out any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. In case I have not made myself clear, I do not consider the assessment that led to the change in export licences in September 2024 to be a test of genocide. The Minister himself appears to have already acknowledged that that one, or any other assessment that may or may not have been conducted, met a lower bar by being focused solely on the risk of breach of IHL. I very much trust that he will not cite that in his reply today. I also trust that he will not retreat to the Government’s well-worn position that it is for the international courts to make a determination of genocide. For the purposes of this debate, I accept that that is the legal position and it needs no further explanation at this time.
I think I have demonstrated that there is a wealth of evidence of the risk of genocide, and that there is widespread acceptance that that is the case. Now I simply want to understand—yes or no—whether the UK Government have conducted any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. Preventing genocide goes to the heart of our obligations under international law—under the genocide convention—and it seems unconscionable that such an assessment would not have been conducted. We need to know. On that note, I look forward to the Minister’s unambiguous reply. I am sure he will understand that I will seek to intervene on him if an unambiguous yes or no is not forthcoming.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing the debate. As she alluded to, we have had many exchanges on events in Israel and Palestine.
Let me start by setting out a little of the legal position in relation to the 1948 convention on genocide. The convention was clearly born out of the horrors of the second world war. It was a solemn commitment by the international community to say, “Never again.” Today, upholding the convention is of paramount importance to the Government. I thank the hon. Member for her thoughtful contribution on the issue.
Complying with international law is a fundamental part of the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I can confirm that we continue to treat all our international legal and humanitarian obligations seriously. That is what our assessments are focused on, and we abide by all of them, including those under the genocide convention.
Mr Falconer
I will make a little progress, and then of course I will.
More than 75 years after it was created, we remain fully committed to the responsibilities set out in the genocide convention. As the hon. Member knows, the long-standing policy of the UK Government is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. That allows a decision to be made in the light of all available evidence, in the context of a credible judicial process.
The hon. Member asked repeatedly for a risk assessment of genocide. There is a difference between the lower bar of the serious risks that we determined in the September assessments and the higher bar. I recognise that she would prefer different answers, but as a Minister I must attend to the legal questions on me, which are at the lower bar. I will not speculate about legal determinations beyond that. I have confirmed repeatedly, to her and to the whole House, that the Government understand our legal obligation under the genocide convention and we have met it. We have set out the assessments that we have made and we continue to keep them under review.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister is relying on arguments that, as I have articulated, do not answer my question. He says that the Government take their responsibilities under international law seriously, including the responsibility under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Does he recognise that we cannot wait for a court to determine that genocide has occurred if we are to prevent that genocide? We have to act before that. Does he recognise that by repeatedly relying on the assessments relating to export licences and IHL, he is not addressing the question? Has a risk assessment of genocide in Gaza been conducted by the Government? It should be, if we are to fulfil our obligations under international law.
Mr Falconer
I understand that the hon. Member does not like the answers that she has been provided with, but they have remained consistent, because our position is consistent. I can assure her that, armed with the full legal advice of the Government, I am confident that the Government are complying with the genocide convention. She raises the very—
Mr Falconer
I will not give way again.
The hon. Member’s question—“Surely, we must not wait for a formal determination?”—is incredibly important. I want to reassure hon. Members that we do not wait. Where there have been provisional measures issued in the ICJ case, we have both abided by those measures ourselves and called on those affected, including the Government of Israel, to abide by them. We have taken a series of steps, and we have led the international community in many of those steps. We recognise the gravity of what is happening in Gaza, in the west bank and across the region. We are trying to take steps equal to the scale of that challenge and we will continue to do so.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have heard repeated constantly the stance that genocide is a matter for a competent court—that has been a long-standing position of the Government—but we also know that a determination has been made, or has allegedly been made, because lawyers acting for the Government in court have said so, that that matter has been considered and that there is no genocide. Does the Minister understand why the British public are perplexed by what is being said in the House vis-à-vis what has been said in court?
Mr Falconer
I understand the complexities of these questions. I recognise that the judge has not yet opined in the judicial proceedings to which the hon. Member refers. Once the judge has done so, we will all be in a position to consider his findings. I have set out the Government’s position, as I think the hon. Member said, at some length, over a series of appearances in Parliament and outside of it, and through written questions. I will try always to explain why it is that the—
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
This morning I was at a very moving service at St Paul’s cathedral to recognise the 30th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. One of the VIP guests was His Excellency the Palestinian ambassador. Would the Minister have any idea why he was considered to be such an important guest at such an occasion?
Mr Falconer
I was not at the event and I cannot speak to who was invited or why, but obviously I speak to Dr Zomlot on a regular basis. He is personally affected by the crisis in Gaza and across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There is no doubt in the Government about the depth of human suffering that is being experienced each and every day—that was experienced overnight—by people desperate to access aid in Gaza. The position that I am laying out in relation to the legal tests that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned is to reassure the House that we take our obligations under the convention incredibly seriously. The long-standing position about determination is that it is for a competent court. That does not stop us taking action in response to the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Recently, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report about accountability for Daesh crimes, including genocide. A number of recommendations in that report pertain to issues applicable to other situations that have been referred to today. I want to press the Minister on the issue of universal jurisdiction. Would he and the Government consider a change in the law to allow for the prosecution of genocide regardless of a perpetrator’s nationality?
Mr Falconer
I am of course very happy to consider the recommendations of the Committee. We do have extrajudicial—I will be careful on the legalities of it, but as I understand it, British courts can look into crimes of genocide outside the UK where a UK national is involved. If the recommendation of the Committee is that that should be expanded, we can take a look at that, but that is the current position. At the risk of stating the absolute obvious, it is a criminal offence to commit genocide in the UK and it is a criminal offence to commit genocide outside the UK if you are a UK national, and our courts have competence to hear that.
I want to be clear on our position in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and its stated intention to hold territory indefinitely. Israel’s denial of essential humanitarian assistance is unjustifiable. Israeli settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and settler violence against Palestinians is unacceptable. Extremist rhetoric inciting unlawful violence against Palestinians is abhorrent. The House has heard about steps we have taken in recent days to respond. We have equally been clear in our condemnation of Hamas for its heinous terrorist attacks on 7 October, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire referred to, its cruel holding of hostages and its use of civilian infrastructure in conflict, which places civilians at huge risk.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire talked of the International Court of Justice, which is considering a case brought under the genocide convention by South Africa against Israel. It has issued provisional measures, including on humanitarian access. We respect the Court’s independence and its authority to issue binding orders, and expect Israel to follow them under international law. Separately, the International Criminal Court is investigating what is happening in Israel and the OPTs. We fully support that Court’s role in investigating and prosecuting serious international crimes and holding those responsible accountable, including delivering justice for victims.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Nearly a year ago, in an advisory opinion, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the Palestine territories unlawful. It clearly specified obligations on all states not to provide any economic, diplomatic, political or military support that helps to perpetuate that unlawful occupation. The UK Government’s assessment of the advisory opinion has not yet been published. Will the Minister advise us when that assessment will be published and whether he believes that the UK Government are in full compliance with the advisory opinion?
Mr Falconer
I want to clarify about the advisory opinion, which we are still considering—it was long in the making and has broad implications—that the UK agrees with the central position that the hon. Member describes, which is that settlements are illegal and should cease. That is not a novel element of the advisory opinion for the UK Government. [Interruption.] I will make some progress, if I may.
Mr Falconer
Let me make a little progress, and then I will be happy to.
Let me set out what the Government are doing. We have called on the Government of Israel repeatedly to comply fully with their international obligations. We do so in private, with Ministers, and in public, through co-ordinated public statements with partners. We have built strong international pressure on Israel to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including through the Security Council. We have voted repeatedly in the Security Council to that effect, demanding the lifting of restrictions on aid in Gaza in line with humanitarian law. We have also taken action to address settler violence and extremism, including the sanctions last week against Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich for inciting extremist violence, which constitutes an abuse of Palestinians’ human rights.
I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on settlements.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister. Will he address the question I have previously raised in the House? Trade in settlement goods is trade in the proceeds of crime, so will he ban it?
Mr Falconer
Ms Jardine has reminded me that I have one minute left, so I will answer the question and then conclude. Goods from illegally occupied settlements come under different trading provisions than those from green-line Israel. That is a question for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that we keep under regular review. As the hon. Member is aware, others are looking at these questions, but at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.
Let me conclude rapidly in order to give the hon. Member the final word. I want to reaffirm that the Government are meeting their international obligations, including those under the genocide convention. We continue to maintain that genocide determinations are a matter for a competent—
Mr Falconer
I am about to hand over to the hon. Member. Our commitment to international law is firm. It applies everywhere without exception, and our record reflects that.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
The Question is—[Interruption.] Order. The Member in charge does not have the right to wind up a 30-minute debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Disabled People in Poverty
(1 day, 6 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
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Most hon. Members present will be aware that this debate takes place in the shadow of the publication of the welfare Bill, probably tomorrow, which could usher in some of the deepest and most severe cuts to disability benefits since 2010.
We already know that the current benefits system is not working. Some 700,000 families with a disability are already living in poverty, and 75% of people who turn to food banks are disabled or live in a disabled household. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions in March this year revealed that 4.7 million people in disabled households are facing hunger, and unsurprisingly, women make up the majority of those disabled people and carers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I withdrew my name so that other Members would have time to speak, but I will make a small intervention. In Northern Ireland, over a fifth of the population aged 16 to 64 are disabled. Among the UK regions, Northern Ireland has the lowest disability employment rate and the largest unemployment gap between disabled and non-disabled persons. The fact is, if someone is disabled and in poverty in Northern Ireland, they are really in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is up to this Government, and this Minister, to give us the changes that we need to help those disabled people in poverty in Northern Ireland and elsewhere?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty.
Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My constituent in Langport, Samantha, is a recipient of personal independence payment. She had treatment for endometritis and is struggling with cancer. Her PIP review was submitted in 2024. It comprised 100 pages of evidence—an onerous process that took six weeks to complete—and she is still awaiting a decision. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise my concern that the Government’s intention to make what is already a burdensome process more challenging will discriminate against the most vulnerable in our society?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
In my constituency, 23,000 people receive universal credit and 11,000 receive PIP. I have asked what impact the changes will have on people going into poverty or being helped into work, and I have had very few answers. Estimates from Health Equity North show that the changes will amount to about £22 million a year being taken out of the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly unconscionable for us to decide to produce that outcome without any evidence to demonstrate the benefits? We are effectively voting blind, and that is simply not acceptable.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will later talk about the evidence that we need to see before we come to a vote.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. Further to the previous intervention, 44,000 disabled people in my constituency risk losing PIP. They are absolutely horrified, because they will not only lose their dignity but be pushed into serious poverty. This is not the right way to do things, and it is certainly not the Labour way to do things. Does he agree that the right choice would be to tax the super-rich, so they pay their fair share?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people.
Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year.
We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech.
Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed.
A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty.
I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
On the suggestion that there is no evidence, does the evidence not come from when the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee looked at previous assessment changes?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction.
We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing.
The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer.
It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence.
As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about barriers to disabled people, particularly those in poverty. I am running a campaign calling on the Government to make sure that people with disabled bus passes can use them at any time of the day, rather than just after 9.30 am. Does he agree that that would be a great way to alleviate the poverty of disabled people?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.
Neil Coyle
On the hugely important issue of discrimination that my hon. Friend touched on, does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Government inherited a position where the Department for Work and Pensions was being investigated for unlawful discrimination against disabled people? That is another of the issues that the ministerial team and the Government are having to fix—issues that they inherited from the chaotic and incompetent Governments of the previous 14 years, five of which were in coalition with the Lib Dems.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.
There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that these proposed or suspected cuts to PIP and other benefits are a sword of Damocles hanging over disabled people in this country? Although the savings are expected to be about £4.5 billion across Britain by 2029-30, that does not factor in any of the broader systemic costs, especially those borne by the NHS and local authorities, which could well negate or even exceed that sum.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.
According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.
Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.
Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My constituency is the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Army Training Centre Pirbright, and is just next door to Aldershot, so veterans, many of whom have career-acquired disabilities, are an integral part of our community. According to recent statistics, 16% of disabled veterans are unable to heat their own homes, and the Trussell Trust says that more than half are considered to be food insecure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we offer disabled veterans bespoke support to compensate them for their careers and the lives they have given in the service of our country?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve.
Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak in the debate, they should bob. We have only 20 minutes before we have to move to the Front Benchers at 6.6 pm, so please keep speeches very brief or go for an intervention instead.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), my colleague from Dorset, on securing this important debate. I will attempt to edit my speech as I go along to buy back some time.
Ensuring fairness starts with recognising those who need support the most. The foundation of real support is ensuring that help reaches those who face the greatest challenges. The additional costs of disability—mobility aids, home adaptations, specialist care, heating and travel—add up and are all substantial. Scope estimates that disabled households need an extra £1,010 per month to achieve the same standard of living as a non-disabled household. Nearly 4,800 people in my constituency receive personal independence payments, of whom 40% receive the highest level of support.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
One of the most common reasons why people claim PIP in Yeovil is poor mental health. Does my hon. Friend agree that to support vulnerable people’s mental wellbeing, the Government must urgently change course on the proposed cuts to PIP and introduce proper staff and accessible mental health hubs in every rural community?
Edward Morello
I absolutely agree. The costs for disabled people who live in rural areas include more expensive journeys to access healthcare, unreliable and sparse public transport, and higher energy bills for heating homes that are often older and less efficient.
Hundreds of my constituents have expressed their concerns to me over the last few months, and I have retold some of their stories in this Chamber. Each one represents a wider failure. The Government’s own analysis shows that the proposed changes to PIP will push 300,000 people into poverty. About 150,000 carers stand to lose carers allowance due to the knock-on effect of losing PIP eligibility, harming those who care for the most vulnerable. I urge the Government to change course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I urge Members to keep as close to a minute as they can.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is extremely disappointing that the Government are pressing ahead with the cuts. They should have learned the lesson from the winter fuel payment debacle. Ahead of the coming votes, we will hear a lot of Government spin about how it is really about helping disabled people, but it is not. Labour colleagues should remember one key thing: the Government plan to slash £7 billion from support for disabled people. They cannot cut £7 billion from disabled people and then credibly claim to be helping them.
The devastating consequences for our communities are clear: 300,000 to 400,000 more disabled people will be pushed into poverty, 700,000 disabled families who are already in poverty will be pushed deeper into it, and at least 800,000 disabled people will lose PIP—the support they rely on to eat, wash, dress and use the toilet. It is immoral and I will vote against it.
In conclusion, I say to Labour colleagues: this change will become a millstone around the necks of not just the Labour Government but every MP who fails to vote against it. In the coming days, Ministers will call in MPs, and there will be the carrot and the stick. They will be urged not to vote against the cuts, and all sorts of promises will be made. But the minute the vote has taken place, MPs will be dropped and their phone calls will stop being answered. From the day of that vote up to and including the day of the next general election, they will be left to face their constituents alone—left to pick up the pieces in their constituency as thousands are thrown into hardship.
I urge MPs not to sit on their hands but to vote against this change. It is immoral. But the Government should save us from that choice by thinking again and dropping these cruel cuts.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn. Analysis from Policy in Practice has found that four of the 10 UK local authority areas worst hit by the welfare cuts are in Wales—and we only have 22 local authorities—impacting 6.1% of our population at a cost of £470 million.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “Poverty in Wales” report, which was published last week, found that 37% of disabled working-age adults in Wales are already in poverty, compared with 19% of non-disabled working-age people. According to the report, relative poverty increases by 219% among households affected by the loss of both personal independence payments and the healthcare element of universal credit in Wales, with the average depth of poverty among affected households increasing by 65% to £538 per month.
If the administration of the social security system were devolved to Wales, the needs and experiences of disabled people in Wales, rather than cost savings, could be placed at the root of welfare provision. More than four in 10 PIP claimants are already in the bottom fifth of the income distribution; the removal of this lifeline, at an average financial cost of £4,500 a year, will inevitably increase the rate of poverty in Wales and across the UK. The UK Government must urgently stop their welfare plans and instead listen and work with disabled people to address the challenges they face, rather than exacerbate them.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate.
Fourteen years of austerity, followed by a global pandemic and then a cost of living crisis, has led to out-of-control inequality in Britain. People and communities have been hammered by austerity cuts to welfare, the NHS and the public services that bind us together and are the civilising force in our society. There is no doubt about it: cuts cost lives.
Last July, people voted for all that suffering to end. They were offered change by Labour. No one from any part of the country thought that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and welfare policies that robbed people of their dignity, the change they voted for would be billions of pounds in cuts from the welfare budget. People voted for something else, and I will be voting for something else.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Talking of austerity, Kirklees council has been devastated by the cuts imposed on it by the previous Government. Some 18.9% of people in Kirklees are recorded as disabled. Does the hon. Member agree that taking away PIP from nearly 4,200 residents in my constituency will put an even greater burden on council services that are ill-equipped to bear it?
Brian Leishman
I completely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman brought up the subject of local authorities and the added burden on them of picking up the pieces from this horrendous proposal.
As I said, I will be voting for something else. I will be voting against the cruel welfare reforms that the Government have put forward. A Labour Government should always lift people out of poverty, not put people in it.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
If we are to be serious about tackling poverty among disabled people, we need to be honest and focused on tackling its root causes and on making sure that the system is sustainable. The overwhelming driver of poverty among disabled people is low levels of employment. Only 54% of disabled people are in work; that is 30% lower than the average for people without disabilities. Shockingly, 43% of disabled people are economically inactive, and our employment rates lag far behind those of other countries, such as Canada’s at 62%. We cannot just ignore worklessness as the driver of poverty. The JRF says that people in full-time work are five times less likely to be poor than those in no work.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
No thank you; I have very little time.
We have to deal with the root causes, so we have to focus on work. We also have to deal with the sustainability of the system, which is currently unsustainable. PIP claimant levels have risen at twice the level of underlying ill health. The rise since 2016 alone is equivalent to the entire police grant for England and Wales. If we are to sustain the system for the long term, we must make it sustainable. The proposed changes will not affect 90% of people. They will protect the most vulnerable and make the system fit for the future. That is why we should support them.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate.
Of the 13,132 disabled people who live in my constituency, 5,110 claim PIP. Cutting benefits without tackling the sky-high extra costs that disabled people face is unconscionable. Scope’s research shows that the monthly extra cost incurred by disabled people living in London is currently £1,469, which is notably higher than the UK-wide figure.
The Government’s claim that the cuts will increase employment is not backed by any assessment. Their own impact assessment found that the cuts will result in 250,000 more people in relative poverty, of whom 50,000 will be children. Disability benefit cuts will affect 3.2 million current or future claimant families. What I heard recently about the proposed cuts to disability benefit from disabled constituents at an event organised by the Disability Advice Service in Lambeth only deepened my conviction that the cuts are wrong and deeply damaging. Sadly, the Government are not listening.
Ian Byrne
The Government got it completely wrong when they cut winter fuel payments last year, forcing them into a damaging U-turn this month. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than make another gross error by pushing through brutal cuts to disability support, the Government should admit their mistake, withdraw the plans and introduce a wealth tax instead?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. A wealth tax would be a start, and there are other ways in which the Government could look for savings on disability benefits. They could start with the US multinationals that make a profit off the humiliating PIP assessments. Maximus, the US firm that tests eligibility for UK disability benefits, recently reported a 23% rise in profits, making £29.1 million in the year ending September 2024. That is yet another example of a private company profiting while people are forced into financial vulnerability.
In last month’s PIP debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I reiterated her point that it is never too late for the Government to change course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) just pointed out. The Prime Minister recently doubled down on plans to proceed with the cuts, but it is not too late. There can be a change of course, and I urge the Government to reconsider this very cruel group of cuts.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I am sorry, but as we are now very short of time, I have to ask everybody to keep to a minute.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this timely and important debate.
More than 6,000 people in my constituency claim personal independence payments. Hundreds of them have written to me and I have met many of them and their families at listening events I have held across the constituency. One clear thing they all say to me is that being disabled is already a full-time job. Of the 6,000 people who claim PIP in my constituency, 40% will never work; 30% are in work; and approximately 30% are awaiting some form of treatment.
I have been seeking assurances from Ministers on behalf of those constituents who are in work thanks to their PIP, and the answer I keep getting is that they may score differently next time around. If those people lose their payments, they will not be able to afford to pay their bills, and they could lose their jobs and their homes. How are we to get people into work when we are pushing others out of it?
PIP has never worked for disabled people and the Government should work with the disabled to design a positive vision for PIP. The Green Paper is not a meaningful reform; it is tweaking the same bad policies.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The diagnosis is wrong and the treatment is no cure; all these cuts will do is to displace the cost and displace the problem. It was not disabled people who broke the NHS waiting lists. It was not disabled people who removed the access to mental health services. It is not disabled people who are experiencing a healthier life expectancy. It is the system, which has failed them for 14 years, that has done that to them—which is why we must change direction and not progress with these cuts.
Above all, employers have a major responsibility. Of course Access to Work is not working when people have to wait 85 days to get the support they need. When life spirals out of control, people need a state behind them. The sequencing is wrong, the proposals are wrong and ultimately the outcomes will be devastating.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate.
It is clear from some of my colleagues’ comments and from some of the discourse on this topic that many politicians do not understand the lives of disabled people. In the UK, disabled people face an extra average cost of nearly £1,000 a month. That is not optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was never built with disabled people in mind.
A persistent and damaging myth is that the personal independence payment is a benefit for those out of work. It is not a benefit. PIP is not income replacement; it exists to help to cover the extra costs of disability, whether someone is in employment or not. In fact, many recipients rely on it to stay in work, using it to overcome the additional barriers that working life presents.
There are significant and deeply concerning disparities between disabled and non-disabled people in employment opportunities and fair pay—17%, according to the TUC. That is really unfortunate, but I fear that we are focusing on the wrong things. This system should not be about punitive measures; it should be about encouraging employers to do the right thing, including making reasonable adjustments.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The level of destitution among disabled people in England is not just a problem—it is a national disgrace. Three quarters of adults receiving health-related universal credit are experiencing material deprivation.
Poverty among the disabled is the deliberate outcome of an economic model and a style of governance designed to serve the interests of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations. Under this Labour Government, there can be no moral or fiscal justification—none at all—for maintaining the lowest corporation tax in the G7 alongside a social security net so threadbare that hundreds of thousands of disabled people have already fallen into poverty, let alone cutting back further the support that it provides, which would result in even more widespread destitution.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
In my constituency, 10,000 people are in receipt of PIP or the health element of universal credit, and they are frankly terrified. Already more than 6.3 million people with a disabled family member live in poverty, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that the full impact of the Government’s measures could push an extra 400,000 people into poverty.
It is also important to stress that, although the Government’s package of employment support is welcome, the number of people back in work will be nominal. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 1% to 3% of people who have their benefits cut will be helped back into work.
While I recognise the dire financial situation that the Government inherited, balancing the books on the backs of the most vulnerable is not morally right when options such as taxing wealth more fairly are available. I should stress that that particular option has widespread public support, and indeed support from many millionaires themselves. I ask the Government to please do the right thing and scrap these cuts.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Jardine, to serve under your chairship.
From discussions I have had in Clwyd North, it is clear that our systems need urgent reform. I have heard too many stories from PIP claimants of unacceptable obfuscation and delay that have led to both mental anguish and financial hardship. That has to stop.
I welcome the measures already being taken, but we urgently need to do more. We must waste no time at all in the review of the PIP assessment to make sure that it is fit for purpose, including the assessment criteria and the descriptors. We must also be more ambitious and far-reaching with employment support, both for those seeking and those already in work. I know it can be done. In Clwyd North, local authority partners work with DWP colleagues, the third sector and local employers to create bespoke pathways into work from any starting point. I am pleased that their work is now a Wales inactivity trailblazer, but that kind of support must not be the exception; it needs to be the norm.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
There is a clear link between disability and poverty, particularly in rural communities such as mine, where poor public transport adds to difficulties accessing basic medical appointments and makes it either really difficult or really expensive.
I wanted to ask the Minister about the PIP process. It is a horrible process—I know it painfully well. Residents are having to wait for up to a year to receive a decision and money. There is no financial benefit to the Government, because the money is backdated, but all the while that people are waiting they are presenting in crisis at the jobcentre, the hospital and the GP service, which is costing an absolute fortune and ruining lives. Will the Government look at the PIP process and aim to speed it up, so that we can help more people and save costs in the system?
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
Let us say it straight: disabled people have been let down by 14 years of Tory Government. The number of disabled people in working households living in poverty doubled under the Tories’ watch, to 1.3 million people last year and the pay gap for disabled people is higher now at 13% than it was a decade ago.
I will touch briefly on the upcoming PIP reforms—I did have a bigger speech planned, but we are short on time. An unsustainable welfare system, one that does not enjoy public support or give disabled people enough good support, does disabled people no favours. What does do them a favour is scrapping the work capability assessment and providing extra funding to get people into to work. To have no answer to the additional 1,000 people a day who are currently going into the PIP system is to keep one’s head in the sand and to provide no real answers to the failure of the current system, which is not flexible or supportive enough.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Oliver Ryan
I will not give way. The principle of the social contract of the welfare state is at stake, and this Government are defending it.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this extremely important debate. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, as many Members have alluded to, or a benefit that gives people their best lives; it helps them to live lives that are bearable—that is the reality of it. It allows people to get through what many of us in the Chamber would think of as a challenging life, rather than actually living their best life.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I spoke to Jacqueline from Street, who is unable to work and is absolutely desperate. Heartbreakingly, she told me that if her PIP is removed, she is prepared to take her own life. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the vital support that PIP payments provide to the most vulnerable in society is not a luxury, but a lifeline?
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I have received, as I am sure many colleagues have, disturbing commentary from constituents, where people are already desperately worried, 18 months ahead of any reductions.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted some key barriers around poverty. Members have already alluded to the extra cost of living, but one barrier that I am particularly alive to, as a disabled person who went to a special educational needs school myself, is the lack of ambition for youngsters. It was an exception in my school if someone did an O-level; the highest we were expected to do was CSEs. There is a significantly lower level of educational attainment for people with disabilities.
Hon. Members have already alluded to the barriers to getting into work. Those may be simple misunderstandings, because people with disabilities can do things; they may just have to do them a little differently. It was with great pleasure that I met earlier this week with Turning Heads, a community interest company run by Alan Tilley for people with learning disabilities—appropriately, since it is Learning Disability Week. Alan shared with us that 75% of people with learning disabilities are out of work and that 86% of those people want to work.
Rachel Gilmour
My hon. Friend reminds me of a remarkable institution in my Tiverton and Minehead constituency called Foxes Hotel, which trains people with mental disabilities to become employed in hotels and hospitality centres across the country. In fact, one young lady from Foxes works in our kitchens in the House of Commons. It is not all doom and gloom, but suffice it to say that Foxes is known within the disabled community as the Oxbridge of training—it is unique, and is not the norm. Did my hon. Friend know that?
Steve Darling
I am reminded of the gentleman who won “Strictly Come Dancing” last year, who said that what people with disability need is “opportunity, support and determination”. My hon. Friend’s example demonstrates that in spades.
I will not spend too much time discussing Access to Work, but it is a broken system. It should be there to support people, but it undermines them through massive delays in assessments. In south Devon, businesses that support people have closed down because they are owed so much money. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot closed because of a lack of money, due to the arrears owed to it by Access to Work.
I am concerned that Ministers are getting confused—I will be extremely upset if they do so today—about employment and PIP. They should not be confused. PIP is purely about ensuring that people can live what many of us would see as normal lives. I represent the most deprived community with a Liberal Democrat representative, Torbay, and I am concerned that the cuts to PIP will see cash sucked out of some of our most deprived communities across the country. That is money that would go to people doing support work such as cleaning, helping people to go shopping, taxis and so on being sucked out of what are already our most impoverished communities. There are some real challenges there. The real killer is that 150,000 carers could lose support funding—£12,000 per household. That will push people deeper into poverty and further into destitution.
Neil Coyle
Can the hon. Gentleman remind us whether the disability employment gap and the disability poverty gap rose or fell when his party was in government?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I always look forward with great relish to his interventions.
I am concerned at the lack of consultation around the cuts. That is perverse. I am also concerned that the Government may be rushing the proposals through, perhaps even without a Bill Committee, but rather a Committee of the whole House. Will the Minister assure us that the Bill will receive appropriate scrutiny?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I shall be as quick as I can. I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I fully recognise and share all the concerns that people have raised on behalf of constituents facing the cuts that are coming down the line.
Nevertheless, the Government are right in their overall objective of trying to tackle the challenges in our welfare system, which traps too many people in economic inactivity and presents an unsustainable cost to taxpayers. We have seen an onflow to both PIP and the UC health element, which doubled in the last Parliament. The PIP budget alone will rise by 50% in this Parliament, to £35 billion. Those figures are not affordable over the long term.
Nevertheless, the Government’s plans are crude and cruel. The Government are effectively proposing to scrap the standard rate of PIP altogether. Some 87% of people on the standard rate of PIP will fail the four-point test, so we are effectively doing away with that benefit altogether.
Mention has been made of the 14 years of the last Government. The fact is that this Government had 14 years to prepare for government, and—in response to a fiscal crisis that they created—they are having to rush through these crude and cruel benefit plans.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Johanna Baxter
Talking of cruelty, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is cruel that the number of people from working households living in poverty more than doubled under the Conservatives’ watch, from 600,000 to 1.3 million? Is that not cruel?
Danny Kruger
There were significant issues presented by the benefit reforms that the last Government introduced—again, in response to the fiscal crisis that they inherited. Many of those reforms were very positive in terms of getting people into work. However, I recognise that the axe fell disproportionately on certain members of the community, and I recognise many of the challenges faced by our constituents over the years.
Nevertheless, I insist that the benefit changes introduced some important reforms to help people get into work, as well as significant increases in support for disabled people. Carer’s allowance and disability living allowance increased significantly, and the WorkWell programme introduced at the end of the last Government helped disabled people into work. Some genuinely positive measures were introduced.
Neil Coyle
The hon. Gentleman’s point about DLA is interesting, given that his Government and the Lib Dems abolished it. My question is this: has the £12 billion that the Conservatives said they would cut from the Department for Work and Pensions budget during the last election been identified or outlined? What would his party have done and where would those cuts have fallen?
Danny Kruger
Let me come on to where I think the Government could be doing a better job.
To conclude my concern with the current plans, we will not see significant savings, as hon. Members have said, because the costs will be shunted elsewhere in the system. We should be very concerned about what will happen to local authority budgets and the NHS. The cause is the Government’s failure to introduce the substantial reforms needed to the way our benefit system, and in fact our wider economy, works.
The solution needs to be a much better assessment system. I am glad that the Government are proposing to review the assessment process for PIP and UC; I think they should be doing that before they introduce these significant cuts to benefits. We need assessments that recognise the fluctuating nature of many of the conditions that people experience. That is particularly the case with mental health, but there are also increasing numbers of young people who come forward with claims and the assessments do not take account of their conditions. We need a more human system, which is why it is important to introduce more face-to-face assessments.
Most importantly, we need more support for people who are far from the labour market. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German); we need a process led by civil society. That was a key part of the reforms introduced under the last Government, but I do not think they went nearly far enough. A whole system of universal support, alongside universal credit, is the way to support people who are far away from the labour market. It is about not just the benefit levels, but the support that is given.
We need to listen to disabled people, and I am grateful for the input that I have had from disabled people’s groups as we look forward to the coming changes. We also need to listen to employers and put them in the driving seat with the reforms. We have a real problem in this country: in the UK, only 12% of employers offer phased return to work support, whereas in Germany that figure is 34%. We could do so much better at helping employers to provide support for people who are trying to get back into work.
I will conclude by stressing that Access to Work needs to be improved. We doubled spending on that in the last Parliament, but more needs to be done. Finally, and most of all, we need a growing economy. With unemployment up, inflation up, debt up and taxes up, we have a disjointed approach. Unless we get properly well-paid jobs, we will always struggle with the welfare bill.
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. It has been a good debate. I would normally run through all the people who have spoken, but there have been so many—I will try to cover some of the points that have been raised. However, I begin by saying that the level of poverty among disabled people demands our attention and action, and it is right that we discuss it today.
Disabled people, like everybody else, have the right to dignity, the right to work and the right to have power, choice and control over their lives. When someone is in poverty, regardless of whether they are disabled, they are robbed of the opportunity to choose how to live their own life, which is why the situation we face today is so very shameful. When the Tories left office, 14 million people were in poverty, including 6.3 million people living in households in which someone is disabled—enough to fill Wembley stadium 70 times over, and more than the population of Scotland. That is a moral, social and economic failure on a colossal scale, and this Government have already taken urgent action to tackle it by delivering our plan for change, putting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards.
Some of the specific anti-poverty measures in last week’s spending review are really important. For the first time, we have taken a long-term approach to the household support fund so that local authorities can properly plan, and we are turning the fund into a crisis and resilience fund so that we can properly deal with the issues that come up from time to time when a crisis tips somebody into long-term poverty.
Last autumn, we introduced a fair repayment rate for universal credit by reducing the maximum amount that can be taken from people’s benefits to pay for what they owe from 25% to 15%, meaning that 1.2 million of the poorest households will keep an average of £420 more in universal credit. As my dad used to say, “Out of debt, out of danger.”
Ellie Chowns
Today the Minister has heard many MPs, representing their constituents, express their huge concern about the effects of the PIP cuts on disabled members of our communities. She says that she cares about disabled people in poverty and about dignity. Why are her Government refusing to raise funds through a wealth tax so that our disabled constituents can have the support they need to live full and supported lives?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. I do not just say that I care about poverty; I have spent nearly a year working on a child poverty strategy to repair the damage the Tory Government did to this country. We will bring forward proposals as soon as we can to deal with the poverty crisis—I have mentioned several of them already.
The hon. Lady asks about a wealth tax. We have put VAT on private schools and private jets. We have removed exemptions from inheritance tax, which is a wealth tax. We have doubled stamp duty, which is a wealth tax. We are increasing capital gains tax and abolishing non-dom status, which meant that wealthy people could escape the taxes they owe. I do not accept that we have not taken steps to raise money through taxes so that we can pay for the public services this country needs so that working-class people can escape poverty. That is what this Government have done. [Interruption.] I will continue before I lose my temper.
We are expanding free school meals in England to all children with a parent receiving universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament, and that is on top of our roll-out of free breakfast clubs. As I just mentioned, our child poverty strategy, on which Ministers right across Government have been working extremely hard, will reduce costs, support families with better local services and increase incomes, because we know that is the best way to tackle poverty.
As I mentioned, the extra money we are collecting through taxation will help to rebuild our NHS, with an extra £29 billion a year for the day-to-day running of our health service, so that disabled people can get the healthcare they need. We are also extending the £3 national bus fare cap, helping people to maintain their independence.
I want to respond to some of the points that Members have raised, particularly on the PIP review, which is already under way. I know that Members will be involved in that work but, just to be clear, it is already happening.
Johanna Baxter
The Government’s consultation on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, led by the Office for Equality and Opportunity, recently closed. Can the Minister update the House on the findings of that consultation and when we might expect a formal Government response?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend raises an important manifesto commitment. I will relay her request to the Minister for Disability, who I am sure will update her.
We are anxious to get on with it. As many Members have said, it is important to reset some of the assumptions that employers have about the capabilities of disabled people, and the assumptions about whether disabled people should be included in our economy like everybody else.
On how many people will be affected by this, I point out that all the numbers that have been mentioned, including the numbers we have published on the poverty impact of the policy change, are static. They assume that nothing else changes by 2030.
While I understand the very correct concern that the employment support system this Government inherited was nowhere near what it should be, I can reassure Members that change is already happening. We are already getting on with Connect to Work and building a new jobs and careers service. I currently spend half my life with frontline work coaches in jobcentres, including disability employment advisers who are anxious to do better and are moving forward with a changed system. We are not waiting to get on with the change; the change is already happening.
Ayoub Khan
On the £5 billion cut to PIP, does the Minister agree that it is not just a lifeline for the most vulnerable in our society but is £5 billion that ends up in the economy? For that reason, does she not agree that a holistic impact assessment needs to be done? It ought not to be rushed, so that Members can review it and come to a sensible conclusion.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for his point, because it is one of the other things I wanted to clarify. A number of Members have mentioned money being taken out of communities. Having been a Member of Parliament during the actual austerity years under the Conservatives, I can say that the benefit and other changes made under austerity clearly had a huge impact on certain parts of the country.
That is why the spending review set out our investment plans. I have already mentioned the funding for the NHS and other areas through which we will be supporting the very communities that need to be lifted. I refer the hon. Member to the distributional analysis published alongside the documents last week, where he will see that this Government are prioritising lifting the communities that really need to be lifted.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) has gone now, but I want to say that veterans can be supported through the armed forces independence payment, whether in work or not. That is separate from PIP, and no changes are proposed to it.
Alison McGovern
I will wind up, because we are out of time. I have no doubt that these discussions will continue over the coming weeks, and I look forward to engaging with everybody here on them. [Interruption.]
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I am sorry, but we have to put the Question quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.
Census 2021: General Report for England and Wales
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
The UK Statistics Authority has published the general report of census 2021 in England and Wales. The general report is the official and comprehensive account of the 2021 census in England and Wales, which was delivered against the backdrop of the covid pandemic.
The general report is being laid before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to the Census Act 1920. It covers the whole operation of the census, from the 2014 recommendation to hold a digital-first census, through the preparation and delivery of the data-collection operation in 2021, to the publication of census data in 2022-23. The general report is also available on the Office for National Statistics’ website.
[HCWS702]
Army Commonwealth Cap
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
Commonwealth citizens[1] have a long and distinguished history of service to this country, including during the second world war, which helped us to secure victory in Europe and victory over Japan, the 80th anniversaries of which we are commemorating this year. Today, citizens of over 40 Commonwealth countries are serving in our armed forces and play a vital role in the defence of the UK both here and overseas, bringing with them a diverse range of skills and different perspectives to planning and decision making. We hope they will continue to do so in the future, and we will continue to welcome Commonwealth personnel to join the armed forces.
As we set out in the strategic defence review, we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence that will make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. It signifies a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence, in which we move to warfighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security in the Euro Atlantic. As the UK steps up to take on more responsibility for European security, we must have a “NATO first” defence policy and lead within the alliance. The UK will become the leading edge of innovation in NATO.
The operational effectiveness of our armed forces is central to this. We must therefore continue to bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the armed forces continue to be representative of the UK. We also need to ensure that we do not become overly reliant on personnel whose country of origin (citizenship) may object to where we need to deploy them.
As a result, in November 2018[2], the MOD set a maximum limit of up to 1,350 Commonwealth citizens who can be recruited each year into our armed forces, and since February 2009[3], the Army has had an upper limit of 15% on the number of Commonwealth personnel serving in each of its cap badges. That applied originally to just three (the Royal Logistic Corps, the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps and the Royal Army Dental Corps), but this was extended to all remaining cap badges from November 2018. Until now, this has been applied to the trained strength—those who have completed basic training.
However, we need to balance this approach against the need to maximise opportunities to serve for those Commonwealth citizens who wish to do so. I would therefore like to inform the House of an amendment to the way in which the 15% will be applied. Going forward, the upper limit of 15% will be determined by reference to the structure of the cap badge, and not the trained strength. Changing the way the 15% limit is applied will ensure that more roles will be available for Commonwealth personnel, including those who wish to transfer from one cap badge to another, thus helping to support efforts to retain additional people in our armed forces, while remaining within the overall annual limit of 1,000 new Commonwealth entrants in the Army.
[1] “Commonwealth citizen” means anyone who is a Commonwealth citizen within the meaning of section 37(1 )(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981; a Commonwealth citizen is defined in section 37(1 )(b) of the British Nationality Act 1981 as including every person who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in schedule 3 is a citizen of that country. Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act lists the current member countries of the Commonwealth other than the UK.
[2] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-05/debates/1811051000007/ArmedForcesCommonwealthRecruitment
[3] https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2009-02-02/debates/0902029000080/ArmyNationalityPolicy
[HCWS707]
Afghanistan
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Today I am updating the House on UK efforts to support those most in need in Afghanistan. The situation continues to matter to the UK due to both the terrible humanitarian and human rights situation, in particular its impact on women and girls, and national security concerns, given risks related to terrorism and irregular migration.
Afghanistan remains one of the world’s largest humanitarian crises, with 23 million people in need of humanitarian assistance in 2025. Women and girls continue to bear the brunt of this crisis due to systematic Taliban oppression. The challenging global context for aid financing means that the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan risk not receiving assistance that they desperately need. Over 298 nutrition centres and 420 health facilities have closed this year, jeopardising access to lifesaving assistance for over 3 million people, including pregnant mothers, infants and young children. The World Food Programme currently projects having enough funding to cover just 10% of the 12.6 million people assessed to be food insecure this year. Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Afghans continue to return from Iran and Pakistan into a context where the economy remains stagnant and access to essential services and jobs is limited.
The UK Government continue to play a leading role in supporting the people of Afghanistan in this challenging context. Afghanistan remains one of the FCDO’s largest bilateral aid programmes. In financial year 2024-25, we allocated £171 million to provide vital support for vulnerable people. In 2023-24 we reached 2.7 million people with humanitarian assistance, including over 1.3 million women.
Despite an increasingly complex operating context, our independent monitoring shows that our assistance continues to reach vulnerable people, including women and girls. The UK Government remain committed to ensuring that at least 50% of people reached by UK aid are women and girls. Our results for financial year 2024-25 will be published in the summer.
We have adapted how we work to ensure we are providing early, flexible funding to partners to sustain lifesaving activities, while moving to an approach that can also support essential services and livelihoods for the Afghan people in the medium term. We have pivoted our portfolio towards lifesaving health services and malnutrition treatment and prevention for mothers and their young children. We are engaging with other donors and the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to protect health system capacity, including routine childhood immunisation and surveillance systems. As Afghanistan is the sixth most vulnerable country to the impacts of climate change, climate adaptation will be critical to addressing Afghanistan’s food crisis. We are launching new programming supporting Afghans to grow their own food, strengthen their resilience to climate shocks and water stress, improve their livelihoods, and reduce dependence on emergency aid.
Alongside our funding, we are using our technical and diplomatic capacity to shape and strengthen the international response and protect operating space for partners. We are leading a dialogue, bringing together key partners and donors to strengthen our collective approach to tackling food insecurity and malnutrition in Afghanistan. We lobby the Taliban on aid and human rights issues and speak directly with Afghans and civil society to inform our policy and programming. We also carry out visits to Afghanistan to see UK-funded projects at first hand. We continue to use our representation to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank to lobby for increased coherence and prioritisation of these essential funding streams.
We have repeatedly condemned the Taliban’s abhorrent policies towards women and girls, and remain united with the international community in our firm opposition to continued restrictions. Upholding human rights and gender equality is not only a moral imperative, but essential for building a stable, inclusive and prosperous country for all Afghans.
On 20 January, I convened a meeting in New York with senior representatives from the UN and influential countries to underline the importance of collectively addressing Afghanistan’s challenges. On 28 January, I hosted a roundtable with country representatives from WFP and the United Nations Population Fund to discuss the gendered impacts of the crisis in Afghanistan. At the UN in New York on 12 March, the UK’s special envoy for women and girls, Baroness Harriet Harman, jointly hosted an event reiterating support for girls’ education in Afghanistan with the United Arab Emirates, Norway, and UN Women.
In a renewed commitment to the people of Afghanistan, Mr Richard Lindsay has today been appointed special envoy to Afghanistan. Mr Lindsay will lead a new Afghanistan department from the UK, taking on the duties of the current chargé d’affaires, whose assignment concludes at the end of this month. The UK mission to Afghanistan in Doha will close on 30 June 2025. This new model will allow the UK to actively engage with a broader range of Afghans beyond Doha, particularly those calling for peaceful political change towards a more inclusive political settlement. Our resolve to support the people of Afghanistan for the long term is unwavering.
[HCWS703]
Women, Peace and Security: Annual Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my noble Friend Lord Collins of Highbury, has today made the following statement:
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, together with the Ministry of Defence, is today publishing the 2024 annual report on progress against the UK’s fifth women, peace and security national action plan.
The report published today demonstrates the Government’s commitment to transparency and accountability on the women, peace and security agenda, outlining progress since February 2024, and against the NAP’s five strategic objectives. The report also provides case studies on the NAP’s implementation objectives, and has included case studies from Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Syria, Ukraine, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and Sudan.
The Government have committed to build on the approach and ambition of the UK’s current and fifth NAP, published under the previous Government in February 2023, advancing implementation and updating priorities. As part of the Government’s commitment to transparency, we will engage with civil society, and the all-party parliamentary group on women, peace and security, as we refresh the NAP and prior to publication.
The recently published strategic defence review makes it clear that the threats we now face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the end of the cold war. The SDR sets out a vision to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. As we invest in defence, we must recognise that the women, peace and security agenda is critical to our success. This means strengthening women’s representation in security and defence, as well as ensuring that gender dynamics are fully considered in our approach to national security, transnational threats and operational effectiveness.
In this 25th anniversary year of the WPS agenda, I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to advancing women’s full, equal, meaningful and safe participation in political, security and peace processes. This Government will continue to advance gender equality and empower women and girls through our international action.
[HCWS706]
Firearms Licensing: Sound Moderators
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
The Government are today publishing their response to the public consultation that was undertaken by the previous Government on a proposal to remove the firearms accessory known as a sound moderator from firearms licensing controls. The consultation ran between 21 February and 2 April 2024.
A sound moderator can be attached to a rifle barrel to reduce the sound and flash when the rifle is fired. It reduces the sound of the shot by around three quarters, and accordingly these accessories are used to protect shooters’ hearing, to reduce the disturbance to others in the vicinity of shoots, and to stop shooters being temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of a shot. They are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts and do not of themselves create a risk to public safety. They are, however, currently defined as a firearm in the Firearms Act 1968, and therefore they are subject to the requirement to be licensed by the police.
The Government have decided to remove sound moderators from the requirement to be licensed, and that doing so will not create any public safety risk or impact in any way the strength of our existing firearms controls. We do, however, see merit in making it a requirement for a person to be in possession of a valid firearms certificate, issued by the police, in order to lawfully possess a sound moderator. This will ensure that these accessories are held lawfully only by those with a legitimate purpose.
The public consultation also sought views on whether it would be appropriate to use a legislative reform order, made under section 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, if it were decided to deregulate sound moderators. Having given careful consideration to this, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to use such an order, given that this will require a change to the legal definition of a firearm set out in the Firearms Act 1968. The Government are therefore of the view that this change should be made through primary legislation, and we will therefore seek to make this change when parliamentary time allows.
A copy of the Government response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS705]
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
As I told the House on 5 February, I have issued invitations under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to all councils in two-tier areas and their small neighbouring unitary authorities to work together to develop proposals for unitary local government. This reform will mean more accountable structures, making it much clearer who residents should look to on local issues. It will also mean fewer, but more empowered, local political leaders, who can focus on delivering for residents. I told the House on 3 June that I had received proposals from Surrey councils by the deadline specified in their invitation of 9 May. I will now provide an update on local government reorganisation in Surrey.
I received two proposals—one from Elmbridge borough council, Mole Valley district council and Surrey county council for two unitary councils, and one from the borough councils of Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, and Waverley and Woking, and Tandridge district council, for three unitary councils. I also received a joint submission from the borough councils of Reigate and Banstead and Crawley, in West Sussex, which I have decided does not meet the statutory requirements for a proposal, or the terms of the invitation, and is accompanied by insufficient information to enable a decision to be taken to implement it.
Today I have launched a consultation on the two proposals from Surrey councils. This is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/surrey-local-government-reorganisation and I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Library of the House. I would welcome views from any interested people, including residents, and I am consulting the councils that made the proposals, other councils affected by the proposals, and councils in neighbouring areas. I am also consulting public service providers, including health providers, the police and fire services, and certain other business and voluntary sector bodies.
The consultation period will run for seven weeks until Tuesday 5 August. The consultation document is available, and those responding may do so on the Department’s online platform, “Citizen Space”, or by email or post. The consultation will provide information to help my assessment of the merits of each proposal, and I will carefully consider all the representations I receive, along with all other relevant information available to me.
The context of this consultation is that the 2007 Act provides that before any proposal is implemented, I must consult any council affected by the proposal that did not make it, and any other persons I consider appropriate. Once the consultation is concluded, I will decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, I will have regard to all the representations I have received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available to me, and will reach a judgement in the round, assessing the proposals against the criteria in the invitation—whether they achieve for the whole area concerned the establishment of a single tier of local government; whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks; whether the unitary structures prioritise the delivery of high-quality and sustainable public services to citizens; whether councils in the area have sought to work together to come to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views; whether new unitary structures support devolution arrangements; and whether new unitary structures enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment.
With regard to the submission from the borough councils of Reigate and Banstead and Crawley, my view is that it does not meet the statutory requirements, as the 2007 Act specifies that a council can only make one proposal, and that a proposal must specify the area that it covers. For the same reasons, and because the submission does not cover the whole of the invitation area, the submission does not meet the terms of the invitation. Further, it does not provide enough information for an assessment to be made as to whether all criteria would be met, and it would require significant work to enable it to be resubmitted, causing delay in what was intended to be an accelerated process. It would mean essentially drafting a new timetable, which would have the potential to see elections to the new unitary authorities delayed.
As I have received two proposals that meet the statutory requirements and the terms of the invitation, I have decided to take these to consultation. It is of course open to the borough councils of Reigate and Banstead and Crawley to respond to the consultation. With reference to their desire for the Gatwick Diamond economic area to be within the area of one strategic authority so as to best provide for economic growth, I would like to provide reassurance that local government reorganisation in Surrey does not mean that this is not an option to be considered in the future, and I encourage councils in Surrey to continue to engage with their neighbours as they consider options in the short and medium term to secure devolution and the advantages it brings.
[HCWS704]
Dartford Crossing Charges
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
The Dartford crossing is the only fixed road crossing of the river Thames east of London, and one of the most important links in the strategic road network. Class Vehicles One-off payment Pre-pay account holders A Motorcycles, mopeds and quad bikes Free Free B Cars (including trailers), motorhomes, and any minibuses that have nine seats or fewer (including the driver’s seat) £3.50 £2.80 C Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with two axles £4.20 £3.60 D Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with more than two axles £8.40 £7.20
To manage demand and protect the crossing’s role as a vital component of the nation’s economic infrastructure, a user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003. In 2014, the tollbooths were removed to help make journeys smoother, and the charge was increased to help manage increased demand. That was the last time that charges were increased for all vehicles.
In the 11 years since, demand at the crossing has grown by 7.5%, with the crossing now used by, on average, over 150,000 vehicles every day, and up to 180,000 vehicles on the busiest days. These traffic levels are well in excess of the crossing’s design capacity, causing delays for drivers using the crossing, congestion and journey disruption for drivers on the M25, and a range of knock-on impacts for local communities.
Current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve their stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people. The need to increase the charges in order to manage traffic highlights the need for the additional capacity that the lower Thames crossing, for which the Government confirmed new funding yesterday, will provide.
To secure the effective operation of the crossing, I have therefore decided to increase the charges for all vehicle types that currently pay to use the crossing from 1 September 2025. The new tariff is given below.
The increase in charges for car drivers will be a maximum of £1, with significant discounts for local residents and account holders. The new charges will be significantly lower than if they had increased in line with inflation since the tariff was last fully revised in 2014.
I am aware that these necessary changes to the charges will be unwelcome news for users of the crossing. However, we will continue to support local people through the local resident discount scheme, and I have been determined to keep the nominal fee paid by local people as low as possible, as many rely on the crossing to get around their local area. Drivers who live in Dartford or Thurrock and who have signed up to the scheme will pay £25 for unlimited annual crossings from 1 September—a small increase from the current annual fee.
There are no other changes to the charging scheme. Journeys made between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am will continue to be free, when there is no need to manage demand, as will those made by motorcycles at any time and the bicycle pick-up service.
[HCWS708]