House of Commons
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 33 - Taiwo Owatemi
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am delighted to present this Bill for its Third Reading. I begin by stating how grateful I am to all the Members from across the House who have engaged with this Bill, especially during the Public Bill Committee. It became quite clear very quickly how passionate every Committee member was about animal welfare, and we had a huge amount of contributions, with many taking the opportunity to name check their own pets from home. I thought I had heard every cat name during my years in clinical practice, but I have to say that I was really impressed by the imagination of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who revealed that her cats were named Clement Catlee and Mo Meowlam.
My many years in veterinary practice, working both in Winchester and in Romsey—in your beautiful constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—as well as around the rest of country, have shown me just how deeply the people of this nation care for their pets. They are companions, and they are sometimes sole companions to people who live alone. I have lost count of the number of times, especially during covid, that we were treating animals and someone would say, “I haven’t seen anyone else for months, and my dog or my cat is my only companion.” Pets are absolutely vital for many people’s mental health, especially when we have an epidemic of loneliness. Pets are sometimes part of the antidote to that.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency is the home of Canine Partners, the organisation that provides canine companions for individuals with disabilities. I just wanted to reflect on the positive effect those dogs have on the people who care for them.
Dr Chambers
There are so many fantastic organisations like Canine Partners. Another one is the Cinnamon Trust. If a person ends up going into hospital for an extended period of time, the Cinnamon Trust will take care of their pet for them and give it back to them when they are discharged. That takes away so much of the worry.
My partner Emma and I have two dogs: Frank and Moose. Frank has been mentioned before in Parliament, because I managed to wish him a very happy 15th birthday recently. He is a pug cross border terrier. I think the best way to describe how he looks, with his undershot jaw and his big buggy eyes, is quirky. I admit that he gets a mixed reception; one Liberal Democrat Member saw a picture of him and called him ugly, which I was horrendously offended by. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] It was awful—shame! We were at one of my friends’ houses for dinner recently, and one of their children looked at Frank and said, “Frank is really ugly.” The other child said, “You shouldn’t say that, because he might have been in an accident.” It was possibly a genetic accident, but I want to make clear on the record that beneath his appearance, he is a gentle and loving companion, and he brings a smile to the face of everyone who sees him.
I know that many other Members, as well as people across the country, will feel as strongly about protecting animal welfare as I and other vets do. Pets like Frank and Moose have such profound impacts on our everyday lives and happiness, and it is crucial that we do all we can to ensure dogs like them are protected from the cruel practices involved in pet smuggling. All of the pets who have been mentioned in this Chamber, and others who have not been, are close to our hearts and serve to remind us of the importance of this Bill. Although my pets and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—Alfie and—
Dr Chambers
Alfie and Luna. They are cockapoos —I am sure they keep you very fit. Although our pets, and all the pets of the other hon. Members who are in the Chamber today, are well cared for and have loving homes, that is not the case for all cats and dogs in the UK.
As a vet, I have seen the devastating consequences of puppy smuggling. It is unimaginably cruel to separate puppies and kittens from their mothers at a very young age and then bring them across borders in substandard conditions, where they are sold for maximum profit by unscrupulous traders who prioritise profit over welfare.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this Bill, which I know means a lot to the great number of my constituents who have contacted me. They are particularly concerned about the conditions that puppies are smuggled in, but also that many animals coming into this country illegally bring conditions that we have eradicated here, or have cropped ears and tails. They are very keen to see my hon. Friend’s Bill pass, but can he assure us that more can be done in future to make sure, in particular, that we stamp out those illnesses?
Dr Chambers
I very much appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend. Yes, one important part of this Bill—which I will come on to—is biosecurity. There are a lot of diseases that we do not see in the UK that can affect humans as well, such as rabies and Brucella canis. There are also diseases such as distemper that affect other dogs; we do not see those diseases in the UK, but there is a risk of them coming in and becoming endemic. My partner Emma, who is here today, is an epidemiologist at the University of Surrey, studying diseases such as rabies in dogs and the risk of them transferring across borders. It is a very live issue.
Those who purchase an animal are often completely unaware of the smuggling process, which is devastating. When people go to buy a puppy, they are completely unaware that there is a reasonable chance that it has been smuggled in from abroad.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My hon. Friend is laying out clearly the need for change. A number of my constituents, including Ann from Bredbury, Shannon from Marple and Ashley from High Lane, have been in touch to ask me to support him in his endeavours. People are staggered that some of these practices are not yet outlawed. Does he agree that some of his proposals in the Bill are closing loopholes that people already expect to be closed?
Dr Chambers
That is an insightful intervention from my hon. Friend. Yes, most people are shocked at the sheer scale of puppy smuggling. The Dogs Trust did a study looking at one of the online platforms with puppy adverts, and up to 50% of those adverts turned out to be for puppies that had possibly been smuggled in from abroad. In the last 12 months, one in five vets said they had treated animals that they believed had been smuggled from abroad. This is not a niche issue; it is a systemic issue within the pet trade, and these loopholes need to be closed.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this fantastic Bill, which does important things for animal welfare. Sadly, my constituency has a problem with dog-on-dog attacks, which are truly distressing to their owners. The overwhelming majority of dog owners in my constituency are incredibly responsible and keep their dogs under control at all times, but a tiny minority are doing a great deal of damage. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts on what we could do about that?
Dr Chambers
Dog-on-dog attacks are a huge issue. It largely comes down to socialisation when they are puppies. It was made a lot worse during the covid pandemic when people could not attend normal puppy training classes, and puppies could not walk and meet other dogs or have normal training regimes.
I will also come on to the problem of dogs having illegally cropped ears—when their ears are cut off—because dogs communicate by body language, and part of their body language is ear position. If they cannot move their ears, they cannot communicate in normal ways to other dogs that they are not a threat, and they are more likely to get into fights and difficulties. It is the same if their tails are cut off and they cannot show whether they are happy, sad, angry or confident.
When owners buy a new puppy, often they do not realise that it has been smuggled and taken from its mother far too soon. That can cause a lot of medical issues and other diseases, such as parvo virus. It is not unusual for someone to buy a new puppy and, within the first week or two, have to go to the vet repeatedly with a very sick animal, whose problems are often quite hard to diagnose. Sometimes these diseases are fatal. There are few things more heartbreaking than a family who, within a few days of ownership, not only have an expensive veterinary bill but have lost their new puppy.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for introducing this important Bill, which I support. He talks about the impact of diseases that puppies might have when they are brought in. Does he agree that there are also diseases that have potential impacts on human health, often for the veterinary surgeons or nurses who are looking after them? For example, diseases such as Brucella canis could lead to miscarriage for a lady if she is looking after one of those puppies while pregnant.
Dr Chambers
I know that the hon. Lady speaks with authority as her husband is a vet. I thank her for sitting on the Committee and for pushing the Bill through. She also has a private Member’s Bill on animal welfare. She makes an important point that has been consuming the veterinary profession for the last couple of years. A lot of dogs brought in from abroad have a disease called Brucella canis, which can affect humans. It can cause infertility and miscarriages. Obviously, if a dog has been illegally smuggled in, owners might not be aware of the risk because they assume it has been born in the UK. It is a huge human health risk as well.
Just last night, I was still receiving messages from veterinary colleagues about treating animals that they strongly suspect have been smuggled in because of the type of illnesses that they are seeing. That is why we are striving to end those practices by delivering the measures in the Bill.
The Bill closes loopholes in our pet travel rules that are currently exploited. It does so by reducing the number of animals permitted per non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle—including vehicles on board a train or ferry—and to three per person for foot or air passengers. Careful consideration has been given to setting these limits, balancing the need to disrupt illegal trade with minimising the impact on genuine pet owners. To underpin this, only an owner, not an authorised person, will be permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog or cat is non-commercial.
Crucially, the Bill places a duty on the Government to use these regulation-making powers to deliver three key measures: a ban on the import of puppies and kittens under six months old; a ban on the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats that are more than 42 days pregnant; and a ban on the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. Raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be imported will ensure that very young animals are not taken from their mothers too soon. Separating a puppy or kitten from its mother too young has huge implications for its health and welfare.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this very important Bill. The point about very young animals is really pertinent. In my family, we have two kittens. They were brought into our house at an appropriate age, and we can see the importance of their first relationships after birth.
One of my constituents owns ferrets, and I met both those ferrets at civic events in my constituency of Watford. They clearly have personalities, and it is really important that this Bill seeks to protect them.
Dr Chambers
Yes, ferrets are some of the most quirky and engaging creatures you can ever meet—great personalities. I have to say I hate them coming into the consult room, because you can smell that they have been there for several hours afterwards, but they bring a lot of joy and pleasure to the people who own them.
We anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. The evidence from stakeholders suggests that even at present, traders are importing very heavily pregnant dogs and cats in order to benefit from their trade as soon as the puppies and kittens are born, because it is much cheaper and easier to bring in an animal before it gives birth than to try to move a whole load of puppies. We know that some dogs are being taken back and forth; they get pregnant again, and then are brought back to give birth. It really is abuse of these bitches. They are basically puppy factories.
The transportation of heavily pregnant dogs and cats is dangerous to the health and welfare of both the mother and the offspring, especially in heatwaves, given the heat inside vans when they have a few pregnant dogs in the back, so it is paramount that we remain on the front foot and use the Bill to prevent this practice becoming commonplace.
The Bill will raise the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to ensure that very young animals are not taken from their mothers too soon, and that we can age puppies and kittens more accurately. Currently, the minimum age is technically 15 weeks, but it is very hard even for vets to accurately age animals. By the time they get to six months old, they have lost all their deciduous teeth—their baby teeth—and have mostly adult teeth, so we can be much more confident about their age. Raising the minimum age will be much better for their welfare, but it will also help tackle the criminals’ business model, because the demand is for puppies, not dogs that are over six months. We hope that if people cannot bring in dogs at six months old, it will take away the incentive to try to get them across the border.
I come to mutilation, which includes ear cropping, the declawing of cats and tail docking. It is very cruel and should not be tolerated. For anyone who is not aware, ear cropping is when someone cuts a dog’s ears off to make it look more aggressive. It often happens to breeds such as XL bullies and Dobermanns. It has been illegal in the UK for more than a decade—since, I think, 2013. People are still performing the procedure in the UK, without veterinary supervision and probably with no anaesthetic, and then claiming that the dogs have been brought in from abroad, because it is still legal to bring them in from abroad.
I received messages last night from about a dozen vets, saying that just in the last couple of months, they have treated dogs that have clearly had their ears hacked off in the UK, and that now have infections and need the rest of the ear amputated. This is going on now. The great thing about closing that loophole is that there will be no excuse for owning a dog in the UK with cropped ears, and no one will be able to claim that such a dog has been brought in from abroad.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
One of the great beauties of this Bill is that it applies to Scotland, too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will make the prosecution of ear cropping-related cases easier in Scotland, for the benefit of our wonderful dogs?
Dr Chambers
Clarity about the fact that there is no excuse for having a dog with cropped ears should make prosecution and enforcement of the law a lot more straightforward.
I will read out a message that I received from a veterinary colleague last night:
“Just saw for repeat meds check this week, 3yo cropped Doberman, imported but clearly was very young and Owner was not given any passport or papers. He had his ears cropped (supposedly done abroad before being imported, but was probably done in the UK). Lovely bright dog until anyone puts a hand towards his head when it will explode with aggression. Big enough dog to be life threatening if a child approached him. Now exists near permanently muzzled and dosed up on Prozac. It’s maddening, frustrating and pitiful all at the same time.”
Cutting a dog’s ears off with no anaesthetic is obviously physically harmful, but it can also affect the dog’s psychology for the rest of their life, so they will not let anyone go near their head. It is quite interesting; we know that dogs love to be stroked, particularly on their heads, and studies show that both a human’s and a dog’s cortisol levels go down when a human pets a dog. The relationship is mutual and symbiotic. Depriving an animal of that type of relationship for the rest of its life is really upsetting. What is the point in owning a dog if you cannot even stroke it? It is a real shame. There is no reason to mutilate an animal in this way. It is a cruel practice, only carried out for aesthetic reasons, and the Bill will help us to close that loophole for good.
The Bill was amended in Committee to allow the appropriate authority to exempt pet owners from the new requirements in articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation in exceptional and compelling circumstances. This aims to ensure that the new measures will not disadvantage protected groups such as assistance dog users. It will also provide flexibility in emergency situations, such as cases where genuine owners can no longer travel within five days of their pets, for example because they have a medical emergency. I know that has caused some concern, and I reassure hon. Members that it is intended for use in limited circumstances, which must be exceptional or compelling. Exemptions sought will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the Government have provided reassurances that no blanket exemptions will be granted.
Finally, in Committee the Bill was amended to remove the power that would have enabled the Secretary of State to make consequential changes that might have been required as a result of changes that the Bill makes to the pet travel rules and corresponding commercial import rules. Further consideration of the legislation has taken place since the Bill was introduced, and we have greater confidence that no further consequential amendments will be required. Should further changes to the pet travel schemes legal framework be needed, the Government may be able to make them using existing powers in other legislation.
The Bill will play a pivotal role in disrupting the cruel pet smuggling trade, a shared objective of Members from across the House. It has been a joy to see the House united on animal welfare, and to see the commitment to working together across parties to end puppy smuggling. I urge all Members to support these crucial measures.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing forward the Bill, and for all his work to get it to this stage. We should also thank the former hon. Member for North Devon, who I understand brought forward the Bill in the previous Parliament; it did not quite get through Parliament before the general election. It is good to see proposed legislation moving from one Parliament to the next and having cross-party support.
The hon. Gentleman represents Winchester. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I share a relationship, as I am a Romsonian and you represent my parents, but one of my first jobs was in Winchester, in the Esso garage by Peter Symonds college, so I know the hon. Gentleman’s constituency very well. That was the job that got me through university, and earned me money in the summer holidays. One of my proudest achievements was being given the opportunity to step up and take on the night shift, which was double pay. For a student, that was very exciting. Unfortunately, I lost that job because I fell asleep on my shift and someone stole the carwash while I was asleep. Yes. I was demoted back to daytime shifts, but Winchester always has a place in my heart.
John Grady
It is a great relief to know that two Members of this House sabotaged their petrochemical careers quite early on. I had a job in a garage as an 18-year-old—I cannot remember the brand. I made the fatal mistake of filling up a car salesman’s brand new car with diesel, when it was an unleaded car. That is why I never rose to the top of British Petroleum.
Mike Reader
I should state for the record, and for colleagues in Hansard, that I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), as was suggested earlier this week. For those online, I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), either, whom I was quoted as being this week. Nor am I a member of a much worse version of One Direction. That idea went viral this week, thanks to one of my former Labour colleagues, who temporarily made me Twitter famous.
I am a very passionate member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society, and I would like to thank the society for all its hard work during the election period on this campaign. When we put out social media posts and spoke to residents right across the political spectrum, it was very clear that there is real support for changes and much tougher animal welfare measures. The Conservatives, when in government, failed to take action on e-collars; on banning imports from trophy hunting, fur and foie gras; on banning snares and other inhumane devices that are already banned in Wales and Scotland; and—this is really critical for every pet owner—on the theft of pets. It is really positive to see these measures now coming forward.
Matt Turmaine
On my hon. Friend’s point about social media, does he have a view on the importance of having a dog in your social media during a general election campaign? It seemed to be an almost compulsory element of many of the campaigns I was involved in, including mine. Surely the Bill is critical to ensuring the good nature of the animals appearing in those social media posts?
Mike Reader
I completely agree. I was a candidate for 17 months, and for a long while I ran #DoorstepDogs; every week, I took a photo of my favourite dog that I met on the doorstep. Unfortunately, I have given up on that. Maybe I should bring it back.
Dr Chambers
That is a very good point about social media. One reason why there is such an interest in dogs with cropped ears is that a lot of influencers on Instagram and other social media platforms pose with dogs, or show that they have new dogs, with cropped ears. Many people are not aware that it is a mutilation; they think it is how dogs’ ears normally look. That drives a demand for dogs that look like that. We will be running a “stop the crop” campaign to try to get influencers and companies that use crop-eared dogs in adverts to stop doing that, so that cropping is not normalised among the general public. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
Mike Reader
It is fantastic to hear about that campaign, and I would fully support it. But there are also positives in the world of pets on social media. I follow an account, Southend Dog Training, which has helped me with free advice to ensure that Dash, my little Chorkie—full name: Dash Potato Evans-Reader—sits, walks and does not lick so many people every time we meet them. He does not come out with me on the doorstep, because while I am trying to talk about serious policy issues, he is more keen to get in the house and explore.
In all seriousness, the Bill is really important. It closes loopholes and stops the shameless exploitation of dogs, cats and ferrets—as I learned from the Clerk as I walked in, ferrets are included in the Bill because of their alignment on rabies categorisation. It is fantastic to see a really well-rounded Bill of this nature. It will stop puppies being stripped from their parents and smuggled into the UK under the age of six months, and it will stop heavily mutated dogs being brought in, as well as heavily pregnant dogs, who just become puppy farms.
I was at a food conference in Northampton yesterday, and when I told people there that I was coming in to Parliament today to talk about puppies, they thought it was a little strange. But I explained the loopholes, and they were not fully aware of what goes on. It is really important that we take this kind of action to close those loopholes.
Christine Jardine
First, I must confess that I am feeling increasingly guilty for not having mentioned my cockapoo, Brora, since everybody else is mentioning their pet. She has been a social media star—she posed in a Scotland football strip just before the last championship.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about people not being aware and needing reassurance. When we bought Brora five years ago, I remember it being on my mind that we had to be careful, because there are a lot of people selling puppies on the internet, apparently genuinely. I have heard from constituents who bought a puppy, unaware of the puppy trade, and then faced the sorts of issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) mentioned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the public take away from this Bill an awareness of those dangers?
Mike Reader
I could not agree more. It is critical that we do more in Parliament to raise these issues. I also welcome some of the minor amendments made in Committee, which strengthen the Bill further and will reassure people, particularly in the limited circumstances in which the Bill may have unintended consequences.
It is the story of my life that I am a dog lover and an animal lover. Every time I come home from Parliament, Dash is there waiting for me. Very fortunately, he comes with me when I come down to London, and he comes with me back to Northampton. It makes my life so much better, as you say, to come home, decompress—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Gentleman is doing a marvellous job, but he has used “you” a number of times, as indeed have other Members in their interventions. While I am on the subject of interventions, it is fascinating for me personally to hear about the social media accounts of everybody’s dogs, but could we please try to keep interventions within scope of the Bill?
Mike Reader
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you make a good point.
As I was saying, when I come home and see Dash, it is a great opportunity to decompress. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that that is such a valuable part of owning a dog.
In closing, I want to thank a number of organisations that have helped me and others to really understand this issue—Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance have provided great briefings and have helped me and others to understand it. Today is a victory for common sense and animal welfare. One way or another, we will make sure that we improve animal welfare rights in this place.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this important Bill. It is an absolute honour and a privilege to speak on this subject. I have spoken on animal welfare in two Westminster Hall debates in the past month, and it is an important topic to speak about on the anniversary of my election, so I am grateful for the opportunity.
I am also an animal lover. I know that all right hon. and hon. Members present are extremely well informed, so the facts and information I will share is not for their benefit. I want to use this opportunity to provide some education for communities across our country and to share the message further afield, beyond this place.
As Mahatma Gandhi said:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
We often say we are a nation of animal lovers, and today is a test: if we legislate, we must legislate like one. Cruel practices like smuggling pregnant animals or separating young animals from their mothers at an early age violates all levels of mercy. These acts cause unnecessary suffering and must be stopped.
Having researched and had information provided by my team, I found the scale of the issue staggering. Between 2015 and 2019, dog imports under the pet travel scheme rose by 86%. Many of those were illegal or misclassified commercial imports. A single journey from Romania to the UK is over 1,500 miles. Puppies as young as 13 weeks are transported in cramped, filthy vans, We have heard about cropped ears, a cruel thing to do to any animal. More than 21,000 dogs with cropped ears are now estimated to be in the UK population—a result of the legal grey area that we hope the Bill will address.
I pay tribute and express my gratitude, I am sure on behalf of the House, to the many charities and organisations that look after animal welfare and ensure issues are brought to the attention of this place, and that are on the ground helping: Battersea, Dogs Trust, Countryside Alliance and many more that are local, regional, national and international.
It is important to share some of the key issues around biosecurity and health risks. Many smuggled puppies and kittens arrive in the UK without the core vaccinations required to prevent rabies, distemper, parvovirus and other life threatening illnesses. These animals are often too young to have received their vaccinations or to have developed any immunity. That is dangerous for them and also poses a serious public health risk to our communities and domestic pet population. The current system allows these animals to enter the country with minimal scrutiny, creating a perfect entry point for zoonotic diseases—those that can jump from animals to humans.
I will share two or three case studies from Battersea. Milo, a six-month-old dog rescued by Battersea, had been brutally mutilated. His ears were hacked and crudely stitched shut with cotton thread, which had been left to fester. That was not just illegal; it was deliberate torture masquerading as aesthetic enhancement. We need to tackle the glorification of mutilated animals on social media or any other platforms that do not make it clear to the people viewing that it is not the natural state of the animal—it has been mutilated. That is an important point that I hope, through this debate, will become more well known.
To give some more examples, Sunny, Ray and Sky, three Cane Corso puppies, were trafficked over 1,500 miles from Romania. They were just 13 weeks old—under the legal import age—and unvaccinated, mutilated and forced into cramped, stressful conditions. Their ears had been cropped and their tails docked—all illegal here but still allowed under import loopholes. Snowy, a heavily pregnant dog, was smuggled during the final 10% of her pregnancy, in breach of current law. She endured the journey in squalid, dark and suffocating conditions without adequate food or water. These journeys not only traumatise the animals but endanger the lives of unborn puppies and the mothers carrying them.
I did not have much experience of the importation of animals into our country until my preparations for this and previous debates. I am aware that in my constituency there is an illegal trade of puppies, which are kept in small, cramped cages outside until they reach the age when they can be sold. These cruelly treated puppies can be sold for thousands and thousands of pounds. I hope that part of the work we are doing on the Bill can also look to address that.
On the exploitation of loopholes, we have heard that the current pet travel scheme designed for holidaymakers has been systematically abused by organised puppy traffickers. Breeders mislabel commercial sales as personal pet movements to sidestep import rules, veterinary checks and regulations. Smuggling heavily pregnant dogs is a deliberate move, allowing traffickers to appear legitimate by showing the puppies with their mother, deceiving buyers into thinking that the litter was bred responsibly in the UK.
These are not one-off cases. This is organised animal trafficking, often international in scale, that thrives on weak legislation, poor enforcement and consumer deception. Without the Bill, we are effectively enabling profit from pain through a loophole-ridden system that is ripe for abuse.
On constituent engagement on this issue, through Battersea alone over 14,680 people across 649 constituencies have contacted their MPs to urge them to support the Bill. This is a groundswell of support that cuts across party lines. While I have only had one email from a constituent directly about the Bill, I have had over 87 emails in this Parliament from constituents calling for stronger animal welfare protections. This speaks to a powerful public mandate. People are demanding action to end the suffering of trafficked animals and uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader on welfare. Passing this Bill is the right and compassionate thing to do.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
When one thinks of dogs and their close relationship with humans, a good place to start is literature. A great novel about our relationship with dogs is “White Fang” by Jack London, a great American socialist writer. When it comes to cats, I can do no better than Natsume Sōseki, the great Japanese writer who wrote a series of novels about cats observing their human masters with great wit and intelligence.
As a boy, I had three dogs—or rather, my father did. They were Pistol, Poins and Muttley. My dad believed that dogs should be named after Shakespearean characters, hence Pistol and Poins, but the balance of power shifted in the family, and then we had Muttley, the Hanna-Barbera dog—though we drew the line at Huckleberry Hound. Something very important about the dogs is that they were all strays. They had great emotional difficulty in being able to trust humans because they were mistreated when they were younger. That is why the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) was right to emphasise the real damage that cruelty to animals can do. The next-door neighbours have two cats, Butch and Cuddles, and the clue is somewhat in their name; they were stray cats. Butch took a long time to trust the next-door neighbours and my family and I, but he does trust us now. If animals suffer cruelty when they are young, it causes long-term psychological damage.
I am delighted that the Bill extends to Scotland. This House should not be afraid to legislate for the welfare of people or animals in Scotland, so I commend the hon. Member for Winchester for seeking to legislate for Scotland; it is very important to my constituents. We have the Dogs Trust in Broomhouse in my constituency, which my good friend Councillor Lalley took me to visit. The people there do a huge amount of good work with stray dogs.
Sarah Russell
May I take a moment to mention Dobermann Rescue, based in my constituency, which also does fantastic work? I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in commending its work.
John Grady
I will join my hon. Friend in commending the work of that Dobermann charity. Dogs like Dobermanns and German shepherds have a certain reputation, but they are very kind, loving and loyal, so I commend work that is done to help Dobermanns.
There is a great deal of support in my constituency for the Bill, which has many important elements. Restricting the commercial importation and non-commercial movement of dogs, cats and ferrets into the UK on the grounds of welfare is an important objective. As the Bill is implemented, which I hope it will be, we must redouble our efforts to bring to people’s attention how wrong the importation of these animals is.
The hon. Member for Winchester mentioned campaigns on social media, and he was entirely correct to do so. The scale of the problem is large. People are importing these animals for commercial gain, and it involves a great deal of cruelty. There has been a rise in the market for pregnant dogs and cats to be brought in. The hon. Member was right to talk about the mutilation of animals. People have known for decades, if not longer, that the mutilation of animals—tail docking and so on—is cruel and wrong and should not be taking place in this day and age. It is utterly barbaric.
The Bill is very important for public health, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said—dogs that have not been tested for diseases will not be able to come here—and it will help to fulfil Labour party manifesto pledges on animal welfare. It will also improve enforcement. I have some experience of that from talking to former colleagues, and the Bill will make it much easier to enforce certain elements of existing animal cruelty laws, for example on the mutilation of dogs. That is very important.
Mention has been made of dogs on Twitter feeds during the general election campaign. I admit that, during the campaign and for many months beforehand, I too had a hobby of taking pictures of dogs and posting them on Twitter. I have got out of the habit, so I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for reminding me that it is quite a pleasant thing to do. It is probably better for my constituents, too; they probably find it much more interesting than my political comments and other interesting observations I may have. They may, in fact, come to the view that I am more perceptive and expert on dogs than on politics, although I hope they will not find that out for another five years or so.
As a vet, the hon. Member for Winchester speaks from a position of real expertise. He outlined why the Bill is important, and he is to be commended for bringing it to the House.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I rise to support this vital Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for bringing it to the House. As all Members will know, animal welfare is a major concern for our constituents, and nowhere is that more true than Bolton West. The Bill has been long awaited, and I am delighted that this Parliament will finally deliver where previous Parliaments were unable to deliver. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it should be a point of pride that, to reflect that, we strive to have the toughest animal welfare protections anywhere in the world.
My mailbox and postbag reflect the animal welfare concerns that I have and that we have heard during the debate. Dean, a constituent of mine in Daisy Hill, emailed to say:
“According to respondents to the Cats Protection Cats and Their Stats (CATS) 2024 survey, 4% of the cats that were obtained in the 12 months preceding the survey were from abroad. The importation of cats and dogs with mutilations (such as declawing and ear cropping), lack of vaccinations and health checks, and dangerous transport conditions present a significant risk to animal welfare.”
We know that the UK’s biosecurity is compromised by pet smuggling, given that animals may carry transmittable diseases such as rabies and tapeworm, which put both humans and animals at risk. The rising price of cats, in particular pedigrees, means that illegally importing cats is becoming increasingly lucrative for criminals. Cats Protection statistics show that 45% of the cats obtained in the past 12 months were pedigree; for the first time, more pedigree cats than moggies were acquired in a 12-month period. The Bill is a vital opportunity to put in place the measures to tackle pet smuggling that could not complete their passage in the last Parliament.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the volunteers across Cats Protection and at Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home for the work that they do every day to keep rescued animals safe? Does he agree that those charities need our help and support, and that the Bill will help to amplify the work that they do?
I will also put it on the record that I had two rescue animals—a cat and a dog—who both lived to 19 years of age. Sadly, they are no longer with us, but for the sake of Hansard I want to mention their names: Cannie and Roohi.
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the critical work of animal welfare charities across the country. They can make such a difference.
Diane in Ladybridge emailed to say:
“This Bill is a major step forward in improving the lives of animals.”
She is delighted that it will make it
“much harder to exploit pet travel rules to illegally traffic puppies and kittens bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK.”
She also noted:
“Dogs and cats involved in bad breeding—whether they’re used for breeding, or bred poorly themselves—don’t have a fair chance in life. They’re more likely to have health problems, and poor socialisation means they can struggle with life as a pet.”
I am really pleased that the Bill will finally close a loophole to address the issue of dogs and cats with illegal mutilations such as cropped ears or docked tails and help to bring down demand for those features. We have spoken about the social media impact. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians and figures in public life to continue to drive public awareness about why those procedures are mutilations and the adverse impacts they have on the animals and, frankly, society as a whole.
I am really pleased that the Bill will make it much harder to exploit pet travel rules to traffic illegally puppies, kittens and ferrets bred in horrific conditions overseas into the UK. Sadly, these activities can involve gangs who are associated with serious organised crime, which I am personally keen on tackling during my time in Parliament. By bringing in tougher restrictions, we can protect animal welfare and also cut a source of criminal income—an issue that, one way or another, I continue to raise in this House.
While cats and dogs are overwhelmingly the most popular pets in this country, it would be remiss of me, as a northern MP, not to reference the humble ferret, mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader). Ferrets are a northern icon. On that topic, our other northern icons, Oasis, are today reforming for their first gig in 16 years. To conclude, having listened to my constituents on the vital importance of protecting animal welfare, it is fair to say that both they and I are “mad fer ret”.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on bringing forward this Bill. A year on from the general election, it is nice to have one of those days when there is a sequence of Bills that we can all get behind and support and that should do great good for animals in this country and, hopefully, for some of the humans as well.
When I gave my maiden speech, I highlighted that my predecessor and I—in keeping with convention, I said something nice about him—are both vegetarians and that animal welfare is a cause that is close to both of our hearts. If we look at most of his time in office, we can see his extensive efforts around animal welfare. My contribution has been far more limited, in part because of the number of constituency issues that I felt needed to take priority during that time, but I am pleased to be here today to support this measure to improve the wellbeing of animals.
I recall a written question my predecessor asked that slightly relates to today’s debate, and it was in relation to the importation and exportation of reindeer from the United Kingdom. Thanks to that question, we are now aware that in 2020 and in 2021, there were two imports of reindeer and one export of reindeer. Presumably, Santa’s sleigh has separate licensing arrangements in the United Kingdom.
Import controls have a significant role to play in my constituency. Crawley constituency is home to Gatwick airport, and its animal reception centre gives people the important ability to relocate with their pets and also to bring more exotic animals into the United Kingdom. Local authorities also have a significant role to play in these processes. During my time as a councillor, I saw a number of requests for permits for exotic animals, resulting in somewhat confusing conversations about why someone really needed a full-sized crocodile in the middle of a housing estate. That licence was not approved.
The hon. Member for Winchester is to be commended for bringing forward this Bill, and the House is privileged to benefit from his extensive professional experience in understanding the important role that the Bill will play in preventing animal abuse and, hopefully, enhancing wider animal welfare.
We are a nation of animal lovers, and we should feel proud that the legislative framework in this country is already world-leading. Despite all the measures we have in place, I think Members would agree, given the range of correspondence we get from our constituents, that there are probably more separate campaigns on animal welfare than on any other policy area—that has certainly been my experience. It is important that we do not rest on our laurels. We must accept that the job is not done and that, as technology moves things forward, additional measures will need to be put in place to improve animal wellbeing.
The issue of social media and animal abuse online has been raised in the debate, and the hon. Member for Winchester outlined the role that influencers have to play. In addition, there are far too many groups online that are dedicated to animal abuse. Constituents of mine have attempted to shut down such groups, but rather than being supported by social media companies in trying to address the problems, they have instead found themselves reported by the perpetrators of the abuse and have faced having their own accounts shut down and being left without the support they need to bring the networks of abuse to an end.
The worst examples of that type of animal abuse that I am aware of were brought up with me in a constituency surgery, and they relate to the torture of baby monkeys, which are chosen because when they are put in a baby grow, people can convince themselves that they are a baby. Although that is clearly illegal already, the current requirements on social media companies to act are insufficient. I will not burden the House by informing hon. Members of the things that I now know about what happens to those monkeys; all I can say is that after my constituents left, I spent some minutes dealing with the tears about what had happened to those monkeys. We must do better around this, and I very much hope that moving forward we are able to do so.
I enthusiastically support the Bill, but we cannot rest on our laurels. Meta must be made to answer for not acting to bring an end to animal abuse on its networks and for its active profiting from the advertising that appears on those networks. Advertisers must be made aware that part of what they are paying for when they advertise on Facebook is the maintenance of animal abuse networks. I hope advertisers think more carefully about that in the future.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am proud to speak in this debate as the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North—a seat I did not hold this time last year, but proudly hold today, although technically not for a year until 4.30 tomorrow morning.
I want to speak today in strong support of the Bill. It is a vital step forward in our duty to protect animals from cruelty and exploitation. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for introducing the Bill and for his service as a vet. I know the city of Winchester well, as I did my teaching degree at King Alfred’s College. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), Winchester will always have a special place in my heart, particularly Jesters, a pub I worked in for many years, although it does not exist any more.
Portsmouth is a city that cares. Many of my constituents have shared their heartbreak at hearing of how young animals are brought into the UK sometimes under age, unwell and traumatised, just to be sold for profit. The Bill addresses that. It bans the importation of puppies and kittens under the age of six months. It stops the transportation of heavily pregnant animals and prohibits the import of animals that have undergone unnecessary mutilations such as ear cropping or declawing; those practices are outlawed in the UK but are still far too common abroad. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), I believe that social media platforms and influencers should do more to stop that.
These reforms are not only overdue; they are essential. In Portsmouth, we are fortunate to have a number of deeply committed local charities that deal with the consequences of these inhumane practices. I would like to pay tribute to some of those charities. Those at Cats Protection’s Portsmouth branch work tirelessly to rescue, rehabilitate and rehome abandoned or abused cats across the city. Its volunteers provide vital neutering and microchipping services, which help to reduce the stray population and improve feline welfare. They frequently take in cats that have come from unsuitable backgrounds, some of which are linked to international trafficking or illegal sales.
I also want to recognise Portsmouth Cats Lost, Found and Rehomed, which is led by the inspirational Penny Parker. Since 2013, the group has reunited countless lost cats with their families, offered shelter to strays and provided veterinary care to those in desperate need. Its small but mighty rescue cabin, Penny’s place, is a beacon of hope for animals who might otherwise just have been left to suffer.
I also applaud Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue in Cosham. Although it does not support cats, dogs or ferrets, it has recently received national recognition for its outstanding work in exotic animal welfare, and Bernice Buckingham and her team of trustees and volunteers do an excellent job. Their educational programme and specialist care have made Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue a trusted name not only in Portsmouth but across the south.
Finally, Phoenix Rehoming has won awards, including animal rescue of the year 2024 and most dedicated pet rehoming service 2024, and I wish the team luck with their nomination for animal charity team of the year 2025. Phoenix Rehoming has a strong footprint in Portsmouth. It works with foster families and communities to rescue and rehome dogs, many of whom have been illegally imported or abandoned after being smuggled as part of this illicit trade.
These organisations are doing heroic work, but they should not have to shoulder the burden of weak regulation and criminal cruelty. By tightening important laws, this Bill reduces the risk of trafficked animals entering the UK and ensures a greater oversight, through veterinary checks, microchipping and enforcement powers. It also protects families in Portsmouth, who often fork out quite a lot of money for these pets and then find they have been sold sick animals, with fake papers, and are left not only heartbroken but facing thousands of pounds in vet bills.
The legislation is not just about animal welfare, but community resilience. It gives our local charities a fighting chance, pet owners peace of mind and, most importantly, vulnerable animals the protections they deserve. I represent a city that believes in fairness, compassion and responsibility, so I am proud to support the Bill on behalf of the people of Portsmouth North. Let us put an end to cruelty at our borders and build a country that treats all living beings with dignity.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on introducing this private Member’s Bill. As he is a veterinary surgeon, I know that this topic is close to his heart, as it is close to the hearts of many hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) spoke with passion and paid tribute to Selaine Saxby, the former Member for North Devon who brought this Bill forward in the last Parliament, and I thank him for that tribute. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) quoted Mahatma Gandhi to great effect. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) rightly pointed out that the Bill extends to Scotland, and that sections 1 to 4 apply to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) reminded us how important animal welfare is to all our constituents, and the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) reminded us that while our animal welfare laws in Britain are world leading, we can always do better. Finally, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) paid tribute to those many charities in her constituency that dedicate themselves to improving animal welfare.
Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of improving animal welfare. In the last Parliament, we banned the keeping of primates as pets, introduced pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increased the penalties for animal cruelty, banned the export of livestock for slaughter or fattening, and recognised animal sentience in law, through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee ensures that all legislation passed by this House considers the principle of animal sentience. In 2020, we introduced Lucy’s law, which banned the third-party sale of puppies and kittens. These regulations helped to protect animals from being kept in shockingly poor conditions, separated from their mothers at a young age and deprived of human or animal interaction for most of their lives.
The animal welfare Bill before us today is another example of doing the right thing to protect those pets that we all love. Many charities have been tirelessly campaigning for this legislation for many years, including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, Four Paws, Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation.
The Bill aims to close existing loopholes that are used far too often by dishonest breeders and smugglers to disguise commercial imports of cats and dogs as non-commercial movements, in a bid to avoid compliance with existing welfare standards. I welcome raising the minimum age at which cats and dogs can be imported to six months. That will curtail the ability of unscrupulous puppy smugglers to bring those puppies into the UK.
The Bill also further restricts the import of heavily pregnant animals. The Dogs Trust has seen a record 600% increase in the number of heavily pregnant bitches intercepted at the border since 2021. In preparing for this debate, I have read about the most appalling cases of pregnant animals being transported in cramped conditions to give birth, with little food or water. This barbaric practice can permanently damage the health of both the mother and the puppies or kittens.
Similarly, we support the decision to cap the number of animals transported non-commercially at five per vehicle, rather than five per person as at present. That will close another loophole exploited by smugglers that allows them to transport several dozen animals in one trip, claiming ownership of five per person.
I am equally glad to see this legislation ban the import of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations into Great Britain. According to animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA, incidents of ear cropping have skyrocketed twentyfold in the last decade. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ending that horrible practice. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who, like the hon. Member for Winchester, is a veterinary surgeon and a passionate advocate of that reform. Of course, mutilation is not limited to dogs, and this legislation will also outlaw the declawing of cats. That is another horrible procedure that has no medical basis, and we support that measure.
This is a good Bill. Its measures are well considered, backed by experts and charities and designed to implement positive change to protect our beloved pets. I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Opposition that we support this Bill, and I sincerely hope it will gain the support it deserves from the whole of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on championing this Bill and guiding its passage through the House. I have welcomed the expertise he has lent to this debate, as well as his information and the way in which he used it in Committee. I was really fascinated to learn about the “Cut the Crop” campaign, and I am keen to hear a bit more about how we can support that.
I thank all Members who have contributed to constructive and positive debates during each of the Bill’s stages. I have to say that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) must be delighted that he did not pursue his career on the forecourt. He mentioned work of the Animal Welfare Society and his passionate membership of it. He also reminded us all of the importance of doorstep dogs and—one of my favourites—dogs at polling stations, which always seem to appear whenever the election day is. I thank him for his support and join him in supporting Four Paws, Battersea and the Countryside Alliance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) mentioned dog-on-dog offences. Those are offences under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we are working with the Crown Prosecution Service to update its guidance to make that clear. We are also working with stakeholders to encourage responsible dog ownership and reduce dog attacks. As my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out, this is about a minority of dog owners, but it is extremely distressing for anybody involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned stray dogs and the difficulty they have in gaining trust, which is so true, as well as the damage that cruelty to animals can do throughout a pet’s life. He also mentioned the importance of social media and how we can ensure that all of us in this House are sending the right message that we think the practice of mutilating animals is unacceptable.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his support and for raising the importance of ending smuggling. Smuggling is the wrong thing to do for the welfare of animals and for our biosecurity, and that is a really important point. He also raised how we need to bring down the demand for mutilated dogs, and I think we can do more across the whole House on that issue. Of course, I agree with him that ferrets are a northern icon.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his support. He is right that Santa’s sleigh has a separate licensing system, so there is no difficulty in reindeers passing between any borders on the night of 24 December. I recognise his support for the welfare of animals, and we must do better. I will take away his important concerns about social media advertising.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) in thanking—I hope I get all of them—Cats Protection Portsmouth, Portsmouth Lost, Found and Rehomed, Penny’s Place, Phoenix Rehoming, and Bernice Buckingham at Portsmouth Tortoise Rescue for all the work they do. [Interruption.] I was so close. I thank them for all the work they do across her constituency.
As noted by the hon. Member for Winchester, it is nice to have the whole House united on a matter of animal welfare—what a nice way to end the week? The nation is also united on animal welfare. Few topics have as much engagement and support from constituents, as evidenced by the frequent correspondence I receive in Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and that I am sure all of us across the House receive. The public’s passion for pets is very much reflected in the statistics. According to the PDSA, pet ownership has increased in recent years with over half of adults owning a pet. As the proud owner of my cats Serena, Meglatron and Lily, I welcome the Bill and am thrilled that the measures covers cats because they deserve equal protection as dogs. I pay tribute to my daughter Isabel who is here this morning and the magic way she has with animals. She has a particular talent, when we have had young kittens, in helping them grow up to be soft and gentle animals. In fact, our beloved Thomas used to go to bed with her like a small teddy to be cuddled at night-time. I would go in and see them sitting watching television together—honestly, he was more like a dog than a cat. That only goes to reinforce the point made that when animals are treated well when they are little, they grow up to be soft, gentle and loving animals.
It is only right that imported cats should have parity —I nearly said pawrity—of protection, as they do across our domestic animal welfare laws. While we are talking about the wonderful things we have across our constituencies, I want to mention Jenny’s Cat House. Jenny takes in loads of animals that are rescued and lost and found literally into her house—it has become a charity now. She does incredible work as many do across the constituency.
Mike Reader
As we are talking about constituency issues, a sad thing happened in Northampton a few weeks ago. There was an arson attack in Dunelm, and that spread to Pets at Home in the St James retail park. Unfortunately, that fire ripped through the vet, the dog groomers and the store. Will the Minister join me in thanking all the volunteers, vets, groomers and the fire service who put their lives at risk to save so many pets—dogs, cats and others—as that fire took hold?
Emma Hardy
I of course join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved. It is horrific to think that somebody would wish to attack a veterinary building where they know animals receive treatment and where they live. I hope that whoever has done that will be quickly and firmly brought to justice.
As the number of pet owners has increased, there is a number of people travelling with their pets. In 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britain. While most of those were genuine movements, the rise in non-commercial movements also accounts for the uptick in unscrupulous traders that abuse our pet travel rules to illegally smuggle puppies and kittens into the country. Due to its illicit nature, we cannot know the true number of pets illegally smuggled into Great Britain. What we do know, however, is the devastating effect it can have on the health and welfare of the animals that suffer as a result. I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill. These measures represent a crucial step forward in our collective efforts to tackle the pet smuggling trade.
As we set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to ending puppy smuggling, and the measures in the Bill will close loopholes in our pet travel rules that smugglers exploit. The Bill will tighten these rules by reducing the number of pets that can travel in a single non-commercial movement, and requiring the movement of a pet to be explicitly linked to that of its owner. That will fundamentally disrupt the tactics we know illegal traders employ to avoid more stringent checks and oversight. I am reassured that the Bill gives the Government the power to reduce those limits further should there be evidence that our pet travel rules continue to be abused.
As the hon. Member for Winchester rightly highlighted, the Bill also introduces powers for the Government to tackle low-welfare imports through secondary legislation. The Government must first use these regulation-making powers to introduce three impactful restrictions—restrictions raising the minimum age at which dogs and cats can be moved into Great Britain to six months; banning the import of heavily pregnant dogs and cats; and banning the import of dogs and cats that have been mutilated. We want fewer low-welfare operations supplying pets to the GB market and, fundamentally, we want fewer animals to suffer. I know that colleagues from across the House are keen to see these regulations make it on to the statute book as soon as possible.
This Government are committed to introducing the prohibitions in the Bill as soon as practicable. Delivering these measures through secondary legislation will allow the Government to work closely with stakeholders to understand where appropriate exemptions from the measures may be needed. These will need to be carefully considered to ensure that we do not inadvertently create any loopholes that could be abused. Of course, the enforcement of the measures will be crucial to their success. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency will continue to be responsible for enforcing pet travel and commercial import requirements. We will work closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the right tools and guidance to enforce these measures effectively.
I welcome the Bill’s new powers to make regulations, which will provide authorities with a clear process and enforcement powers when presented with a non-compliant pet. Regulations will allow for the cost of detention to be met and, if necessary, for the animal to be rehomed. They will bolster the enforcement tools available to agencies, empowering them to take appropriate action if the new rules are not followed, while ensuring that we protect the welfare of pets that are imported illegally.
In Committee, the Government supported several amendments to the Bill, which provided drafting clarification and the necessary flexibilities for genuine owners who will impacted by the new rules due to protected characteristics or circumstances beyond their control. I was pleased to see those amendments pass, and I am confident that they will strengthen the Bill. The Government supported amendments to narrow the Bill’s power to make criminal offences. Those amendment will ensure that any criminal offences created using this power are foreseeable, having been set out in the Bill, and will receive the appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. The offences specified in the Bill have been informed by engagement with enforcement bodies to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
As touched on by the hon. Member for Winchester, the Bill received a clarification drafting change in Committee. This change made it clear that the existing definition of “pet animal” in our pet travel regulations is not affected by the Bill. Ultimately, it ensures that the status quo is maintained, and the effective operation of our pet travel regime.
The Bill was also amended to allow an appropriate authority to grant an exemption from the tighter non-commercial pet travel rules, as amended in the Bill, in exceptional or compelling circumstances. I reassure hon. Members that this mechanism will be tightly controlled. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill will not result in loopholes that could be exploited by smugglers. The mechanism will give the Government flexibility to deal with unanticipated events that may impact the ability of genuine pet owners to follow the more stringent pet travel rules introduced by the Bill—for example, in the case of force majeure, such as a natural disaster that ground planes or a medical emergency that prevents owners from travelling within five days of their pet.
Furthermore, the amendments will ensure that the new measures introduced by the Bill do not adversely impact protected groups, such as assistant dog users, who may wish to travel together in groups larger than five. This has been carefully considered by the Government in accordance with our public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Importantly, the amendments do not provide blanket exemptions from the rules; instead, each case will be considered individually. The Government will work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to ensure that there is a clear process to follow, and that exemptions are granted only in truly exceptional or compelling circumstances.
Finally, the Government also supported an amendment that removed the power to make further consequential amendments arising from the Bill’s changes to the pet travel rules and corresponding import rules. Since the Bill was introduced, we have further assessed the changes to legislation that might be necessary as a result of the Bill, and we are confident that no further amendments are required. We are keen to take no more power than is necessary. The amendments have not been considered lightly, and I am in no doubt that they improve the deliverability and ability to enforce this Bill.
Several MPs have mentioned our work to reset relations with the EU. As announced at the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and EU have agreed to work towards having a common sanitary and phytosanitary area, which would make taking pets to the EU on holiday easier and cheaper. It is important that we get the right agreement for the UK, so we are not putting any arbitrary deadlines on negotiations. We will provide more information on pet passports in due course; in the meantime, owners will still need an animal health certificate for their dog, cat or ferret if they are travelling from Great Britain to an EU country. While I am unable to comment on live negotiations, I reassure hon. Members that this Government will continue to support this Bill while negotiating an SPS agreement with the EU.
As set out in the Government’s manifesto, we are committed to ending puppy smuggling and delivering a better future for animals. I am pleased to say that this Bill does just that. Its key measures deliver crucial recommendations by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and tackle multiple concerns that have been raised by stakeholders regarding loopholes in our pet travel rules. I commend the hon. Member for Winchester on taking this important Bill through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing it on the statute book.
Dr Chambers
I thank all Members who have been involved with this Bill at all its stages, including in Committee, and for forwarding me a lot of correspondence from their constituents about it. I also thank the Government and the Minister for their support for this Bill, and the civil servants and the Clerks of the House for the support they gave my office in getting this done.
About 10 years ago, I was on the British Veterinary Association’s policy committee, and we were pushing to tackle puppy smuggling. We were working with other organisations, such as the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, FOUR PAWS and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Today is a great day for all those organisations, which have wanted this to happen for so long. I thank Lord Trees, who is kindly sponsoring this Bill through the upper House. He was my dean at Liverpool vet school, and in my third year, he failed my parasitology viva, which meant I had to spend a summer revising and coming back for resits instead of having fun. Given that this Bill will help prevent parasitological diseases from coming into the UK, I hope he might consider giving me a retrospective distinction. I know that the Bill will be in good hands in the upper House.
I also thank my team. A private Member’s Bill is a lot of work, especially for a new team. I noticed a couple of last-minute changes to my speech—I think I can guess who made some of them. I thank my team, including my chief of staff, Tom Wood, and his cat Luma, who is clearly the most intelligent cat in the world. I also thank Emily Kitchen and her cat Tango—the most clumsy cat in the world—and Sophie Hammond, my parliamentary assistant, who is on maternity leave.
John Grady
Does the hon. Member agree that it is most appropriate that Madam Deputy Speaker, who is Member of Parliament for Bradford, is in the Chair for this Bill’s Third Reading? David Hockney, one of Bradford’s most famous sons, is a wonderful painter of dogs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am the proud owner of two lovely dogs.
Dr Chambers
I look forward to seeing those paintings. I thank Sophie Hammond for all the work she did on this Bill in its early stages, and Hayley Puddefoot, who has taken over from her.
I am so happy today, because no longer will dogs and cats be taken away from their parents at a hugely young age and put in the back of a van, perhaps having been sedated or mutilated, and perhaps while sick, and where they may become overheated. That will come to an end now, which is a great step forward for animal welfare. Finally, I thank all the people of Winchester who elected me to serve as their MP a year ago today. I am so pleased to be able to bring forward a piece of legislation that shows people that what happens in Parliament has a real impact out in the real world.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to reach this milestone in the Bill’s journey through the House of Commons. As we know, livestock worrying has devastating consequences for both animals and farmers. In Committee, I and other Committee members shared the experiences that had resonated with us of farmers having suffered attacks to their livestock. The damage of a livestock attack can be horrific, causing brutal injuries that are tragically often fatal. There are instances of stress causing pregnant livestock to miscarry, and separation of mothers and their young leading to hypothermia or starvation. I have seen pictures from farmers in my constituency of the aftermath of attacks that have mutilated their calves beyond any hope of keeping them alive.
The consequences of an attack, no matter the scale, are profound, and attacks are sadly all too common. The data from the recent National Sheep Association survey speaks for itself: 96% of respondents had experienced incidents in the last 12 months, and 98% agreed that there is an urgent need for additional police powers. The responses highlight that livestock worrying remains a huge problem for the sector and show just how important it is to deliver the Bill.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As someone who grew up on a sheep farm, a vet who has treated injuries caused by dogs that are out of control, and someone who continues to work with farmers quite closely in the Meon valley, I cannot emphasise enough how necessary this legislation is. The problem is devastating for animals, but also causes farmers to take a huge economic hit. It is horrendously stressful for everyone involved, and it is not a niche problem—it happens all the time. I thank the hon. Member for introducing this legislation.
Aphra Brandreth
I thank the hon. Member for his insights as a vet, and for emphasising what so many people across the House know: these changes are vital. May I also say how grateful I am to the hon. Members who took the time to serve on the Bill Committee? I am truly grateful for their support and contributions, and for the conversations I have had with many of them about the Bill.
As we heard in Committee, the Bill will modernise the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, ensuring that it reflects the needs of modern-day farming. The Bill strengthens police powers, so that they can do their job more effectively. Specifically, it gives the police powers of entry, and allows them to seize and detain dogs and to collect evidence—changes that farmers in my constituency have specifically told me are necessary. The Bill will also increase the penalty—and we hope, in turn, the deterrent against livestock worrying. The fine is currently capped at a maximum of £1,000; that will go up to an unlimited amount, to reflect the severity of livestock worrying from an animal welfare standpoint, as well as the economic toll an attack can have on farming.
Farming has diversified, and therefore the scope of livestock requiring protection has increased. I am delighted that camelids such as alpacas and llamas will now be protected under the Bill. Anyone who has driven down country roads, such as those in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, will know that farmers move livestock. In recognition of that, the Bill includes roads and paths as locations where an offence may take place; that will give farmers greater reassurance when moving livestock. As I said in Committee, the legislation puts animal welfare and farmers right at its heart.
Today marks exactly one year since the general election. I am deeply proud and grateful that in my first year as the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, I have been able to introduce a Bill in my name that will make a genuine difference both for animal welfare and farmers. This is precisely why I stood for election, and it is testament to the strength of this Parliament that an Opposition Back Bencher can help deliver meaningful change in the law that will have a real and lasting impact.
We should all be able to enjoy the countryside, and there is no finer countryside than in Chester South and Eddisbury. However, that enjoyment comes with a responsibility to preserve and protect it, and to support those who care for it every day: our farming community. The Bill gives us the opportunity to act to protect our countryside, support our farmers and strengthen animal welfare. I hope that Members from all sides of the House will join me in backing it, just as they did in Committee.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak on another animal welfare Bill today. As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, it is fantastic to see this legislation brought in by a party that is not in government, with cross-party support. I declare that I am a member of the National Farmers Union food and farming fellowship. I have been fortunate to visit a number of farms across the UK to hear at first hand from farmers from a range of specialities. I can say that the Bill will be fully supported across that community, particularly in Northamptonshire.
The NFU does great work to represent our fantastic farmers, a number of whom I met yesterday at a food event in Northampton as we launched the Northamptonshire good food plan. They spoke of the challenges, particularly of working across borders with the police, because their farms often do not fit within normal police boundaries, and said they want more Government support for the rural economy. The Bill goes some way to helping to achieve that.
I am really pleased to see the expansion of the definitions in the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and the Bill Committee for ensuring that we get that right. In particular, the inclusion of alpacas and llamas is really positive, as we are seeing more and more of them reared in Northamptonshire. It will be positive to continue to review that as farmers diversify into new ways of maintaining food supplies and the environment and ensuring the long-term sustainability of farming. Bills such as this should continue to be adapted and evolved through successive Governments.
I met a farming colleague relatively recently, who told me about a mauling incident that happened on his land. It was shocking to hear about the direct impact on him and his staff who discovered it, and the fact that the police struggled to take action because of the lack of powers to undertake things such as forensics. It is positive that the Bill is increasing the relevant powers, particularly on the capture of DNA from dogs, to ensure that perpetrators can be brought to justice. It is a grim thing that continues to happen year on year, and we must take positive steps to change it.
The Bill is also very well timed. In Northamptonshire, the new police, fire and crime commissioner, Danielle Stone, has recognised that rural crime has been neglected in recent years. She has launched a rural crime survey, and had a number of roundtables and panels with farmers across the county. We now see farming and the protection of rural communities front and centre in her policing action plan. Northamptonshire is home to the largest town in the UK, Northampton, but also acres and acres of beautiful countryside, which is used for both arable farming and rearing herds and growing crops. It is great timing to see the Bill come through before the summer. Not just my police, fire and crime commissioner but police commissioners across England will recognise and support the Bill as a positive step forward.
When I read the Bill and listened to some of the observations in Committee, I found the expansion of the provisions to roads and paths quite interesting. For the record, my uncle is the former president of the Ramblers’ Association, and he repeatedly reminds me of the right to roam campaign whenever I see him at family dos. It is positive that the Bill expands the definition to include roads and paths, because it sets clear requirements when someone accesses land—particularly in somewhere like Northamptonshire, where so many public footpaths run through farmland—to protect farmers and set clear boundaries for those walking their dogs or undertaking more nefarious activities. It is also positive to see the recovery of costs in the Bill. That is a big step forward that will deter people and serve as a reminder to many people who may be impacted by the Bill.
Overall, the Bill takes a really responsible and balanced approach, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on her work. As we have heard today from the many dog owners in the Chamber, dog owners are generally responsible, but when things go wrong and someone does not take that responsibility seriously, there must be measures in place for the police to step in and farmers to be protected, so I am really pleased to see this Bill. It does not take a heavy-handed approach, as a couple of constituents have written to me about. It strikes the right balance, and I fully commend it and thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing forward this Bill, which is immensely popular with local farmers. I have met with the NFU and its membership repeatedly over months, if not most of the last year, and it is always one of the first things they mention to me. I commend her for her sterling work and for the collegiate way in which she always conducts herself, including in this matter.
It is fantastic that we are extending protection to alpacas and llamas. No one wants to see attacks or worrying, and including both those definitions is really important and strengthens the law appropriately. I am incredibly impressed that the Bill covers paths and roads. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury thinks her constituency is the most beautiful in the country but, of course, it is not even the most beautiful in Cheshire, because mine is better. One of the really beautiful things I did recently was go to Goostrey Rose Festival last weekend. We have new paths in Goostrey and they are used incredibly regularly by dog walkers, but they are on farm boundaries. This legislation is so important for covering paths like those.
I have been on a farm with a family in the aftermath of a dog attack, and it is terrible. I am not here to demonise dog owners—we have so many considerate, sensible, countryside-loving dog owners in my constituency—and I know the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is not either. We are here to make sure that the overwhelming majority of people are left in peace to go about their everyday lives, in both the farming community and the dog-owning community—they are often one and the same—and to make sure that rural crime is properly prosecuted.
GPS theft is another major component of rural crime in my area. Our local police and crime commissioner, Dan Price, has been doing work on this, and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury has been involved in it. It would be great to get an update from the Minister on that.
I want to take a moment to thank the NFU, which has lobbied me extensively on this issue. I am on its food and farming fellowship and have learned a great deal from it. I also thank the farmers in my constituency for continuing to feed us and for looking after the countryside so well.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill, and I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for bringing it to Parliament.
I want to make some brief remarks about what is sometimes perceived as a tension between those who wish to responsibly enjoy the countryside, and both the economic toll and the harm done to livestock by livestock worrying. Since being elected to this place, I have been a strong champion for expanding responsible access to the countryside across England and Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the Right to Roam campaign.
I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, because this Bill shines a light on the fact that most of us who wish to go into the great outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside, whether that is in Cheshire or on the wonderful west Pennine moors in my Bolton West constituency, do so responsibly, but those who do not ensure that their dogs conduct themselves in a considerate manner will feel the wrath of these measures. I particularly welcome that, because there is a balance to be struck between farmers and those who look after livestock in the countryside, and those who want to enjoy our great outdoors.
With that in mind, I want to touch on a couple of points. On extending the provisions to include camelids, there are a number of alpacas and llamas at farms in my constituency, including Smithills open farm. Members may think they look rather incongruous on the great west Pennine moors, but I assure them that they are incredibly popular, both in terms of the opportunity to walk them around the moors and with school visits.
I want to touch on a couple of points that the Minister may pick up on, relating to the opportunities that present themselves, outside the criminal law, to push for greater responsible enjoyment of our countryside, particularly in respect of increasing investment in promoting awareness of the countryside code. I will read out some of the provisions in the code, to make people aware. I think they are principles that everyone in this place can rally around:
“Do not feed livestock, horses or wild animals…do not cause damage or disturbance…leave no trace…always keep dogs under control and in sight…dog poo—bag it and bin it…take your litter home”
and, most importantly, be courteous:
“be nice…share the space”
with others. That should be the golden thread that runs through all our time spent in the countryside.
It is worth me putting on the record that the UK ranks the lowest of 14 European nations with regard to nature connectedness and, out 15 European nations surveyed, the UK is 11th in terms of physical activity. So there is greater work to be done to provide access to nature, but also on enjoying it and breaking down some of the barriers to opportunity.
Nevertheless, I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing forward the Bill. I very much appreciate the concerns she has raised around livestock worrying; she has been a champion for that cause ever since she got elected to this place.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) for praising her daughter in the Chamber. It is very important to praise children. My Aunty Mary, who moved from Newcastle in the blitz to become a schoolteacher just north of here in London, would always emphasise to me how important it was to give children confidence in their abilities and their qualities.
We were talking earlier about dogs and David Hockney, so it would be remiss of me not to mention Elizabeth Blackadder, a very fine printmaker from Glasgow and one of the United Kingdom’s most famous artists. She was a real pioneer in reviving printmaking in Scotland. In Trongate, we have the Glasgow Print Studio. Project Ability currently has an exhibition of art by people who have disabilities and mental health issues. It is a wonderful exhibition. If any Members are going to Glasgow, they should go to that exhibition, because it is absolutely wonderful. It is a beautiful exhibition.
The Bill does not apply to Scotland because it is a criminal matter, and criminal matters are devolved to Scotland in the constitutional settlement, but this is an important issue in Scotland. There has been some discussion about the lack of prosecutions for this sort of offence. It is important that these offences are prosecuted, because farming is an important part of the British economy and the Scottish economy. I know that well because, as a complete townie who gets very uncomfortable if there is a lack of cars and noise, I married into a family of farmers.
My wife’s family were dairy farmers on the Solway firth, which looks over into Cumbria where the Bill will apply and have very important impacts, as sheep farming is very important in Cumbria. I do not think my lovely father-in-law Andrew is particularly impressed with my farming abilities. Helping in the milking parlour did not go very well and apparently the fences I put up were not straight enough. He generally thinks I am incompetent in the farming area. I think now, after 23 years of marriage —it is coming up to our wedding anniversary on 12 July—he thinks I am kind of all right as a husband and a father, but I have not checked this week.
My wife’s aunt and uncle, Elma and Sam, were sheep farmers. Sheep farming is a very difficult way of making money. It is hard work—farming is hard, hard work, whatever kind it is. Farmers have to get up very early to look after the animals; they have to protect the animals and pay for the veterinary bills, and so on. It is a tough job. I do not think we should underestimate how important this Bill will be as a signal that this House supports farmers and takes into account their concerns. These are hard jobs.
Farmers are stewards of the countryside across Britain. Obviously, Glasgow is the most beautiful place in the world, but I would not wish to get into a dispute about where the most beautiful part of Cheshire is, because Cheshire is beautiful. Farmers are an important part of stewarding the countryside across our family of nations, which is so important to us, and this Bill is important for farmers. Farmers are important for the British economy—not just the farms themselves, but our brilliant farmers, who help to supply restaurants and shops, creating the great revival of British cooking and cuisine that we have seen in our lifetimes. So this Bill is very important, and I hope that the Scottish Government look at it carefully and perhaps review the lack of prosecution of these offences.
Now, I should say something of the Bill itself, because it is important. I have covered the important constitutional aspects of it—that it does not cover Scotland—but clause 2 is key. There is limited scope for the police to seize dogs for prolonged periods of time, even when they are causing danger. It is, I am afraid, regrettably common for dogs that have been seized to carry out further attacks pending the trial of their owner. Giving the police the ability to seize dogs for longer periods of time will therefore prevent those repeated attacks. I commend the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for addressing that in clause 2; it is an important provision, and she is quite right to include it.
As a recovering lawyer, I have, at times, had an interest in the investigation of crime. Of course, whatever the legal system, it is necessary to have sufficient evidence, broadly, to convince a judge or a jury to convict someone. Rural crime is particularly difficult in that regard; the reason is self-evident, when we think about it. As a complete townie, it has taken me a bit of time to spot the self-evidence of it.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend consistently refers to himself as a complete townie—a description that I would apply to myself, too. Of course, the fact that we reside in urban areas does not in any way mean that we are unconcerned by the fortunes of our fellow parliamentarians who represent agricultural areas, or indeed their communities, who play a vital role in sustaining us. The importance of food is something I often speak about, for as much as we focus on whatever the leading industry is of the day, society fundamentally comes down to the question of whether we can feed and house ourselves. Covid in particular drove forward the point that the agricultural system in this country is vital.
John Grady
My hon. Friend’s intervention typifies his many thoughtful contributions; he makes an important point.
I think all of us who live in cities—townies, like me—have a great yearning for the countryside. In my constituency, we have Tollcross Park, which is a wonderful park; I recommend that everyone visit it. There is a city farm in the park, which houses llamas and alpacas, to which the provisions of the Bill extend; they are protected by it. I would not want to sully this debate with a political point, but I simply point out that the SNP council regularly threatens to close that farm. Tollcross also has some wonderful rose gardens, which the council does not look after particularly well, which is a real disappointment to my constituents. They are right to be disappointed.
Turning back to the Bill, the investigation of crimes in the countryside is difficult, as there are not lots of people about, there is no CCTV and there are very few witnesses, if any. Clause 3 allows for the collection of forensic evidence, which will be very important in linking the dog to the animal that has been attacked and the owner, and in facilitating the prosecution of these serious crimes and bringing about justice. It is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) raised a very important issue.
The improved powers of entry and search in order to look for samples and take impressions from a dog—teeth impressions and so on, I assume—are very important too; again, they make investigation of these crimes easier. It is important that we investigate and prosecute the crimes; if we do not, the law will just sit on the statute book unenforced, ignored and otiose. If we do not have the enforcement mechanisms, we are wasting our time in the House, so the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is right to include them in the Bill. We do not want to waste our time; everyone in this House agrees that cracking down on these terrible crimes is very important.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill deals with roads and paths. Having helped my father-in-law on many occasions, utterly incompetently, with things like moving animals around—somewhat like my career in the petrochemical industry, when I put diesel in the unleaded car, it was not something I was cut out for— I know that animals can be attacked and worried on roads and paths. It is also right that attacking livestock is dealt with differently from worrying livestock.
I have probably said enough about the Bill, but let me say finally that I am pleased that camelids are to be protected by it. Llamas and alpacas are beautiful animals. As I mentioned, we have them in the Tollcross city farm; they are well worth a visit. The Bill recognises innovation in Britain’s agricultural sector, as it looks to move to new products. Of course, alpacas and llamas are not just important as animals, but a good source of very fine wool for clothes. Anyone who has been to Peru will probably have been approached on a number of occasions to buy an alpaca jumper; they have lovely soft wool. It is important that we extend these protections to that important innovation in the farming industry.
I cannot speak highly enough of the Bill, or of the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing such an excellent, well-drafted piece of legislation to the House.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Like everyone who has spoken so far, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Much like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), Crawley is an urban constituency. On the plus side, I suppose that means I get to avoid the bunfight over who has the best rural constituency—we undoubtedly have the greatest urban constituency.
We are not necessarily known for our farms in Crawley—we have fairly tight boundaries around the town—but people are often surprised to find that we do have them, because the safeguarded land between the urban area of the town and the airport is currently only usable as agricultural land. We are not allowed to build anything else there. I need to take that up with Ministers in due course, in order to try to release it for much-needed economic and housing space.
Phil Brickell
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to have farms in built-up settings in order to give a connection to people who perhaps do not have the good fortune of being able to get out into the countryside, to enable them to understand how crucial farming is to this country and also, frankly, so that they may enjoy livestock in a responsible manner?
Peter Lamb
I agree with my hon. Friend. Having any form of green space in close proximity is vital psychologically. We will be discussing the space industry soon, and research undertaken by those in the space industry shows the huge psychological boost that people get from being close to green spaces.
It is worth bearing in mind that farming is not necessarily the best representation of natural England. When we in this place talk about housing development, I worry because all too often people become obsessed with the notion that England is supposed to be a land of rolling green fields. The reality is that this country was densely forested, and substantial amounts of biodiversity have been removed to make viable areas that are now open green fields. In the Government’s housing programme, we should look at such areas as brownfield land, on the basis that they are not what natural England is supposed to look like. In many cases, new housing developments will have greater levels of biodiversity.
None the less, integrating farming alongside other forms of industry is an important part of developing well-rounded communities. I am familiar with such farms, in part because when I was a member of West Sussex county council many years ago—not enough years ago, given my experience of being a county councillor—we bought one of those farms. It was viewed as a fantastic idea, on the basis that the land would in due course be developed into a runway and we would make an absolute killing out of it. I regret to say that even if the development consent order came through right now, it would still be farmland, and it is not the site of the proposed runway. That is another of the county’s investments that has not really played out as planned.
John Grady
The National Wealth Fund, which the Government are focusing on—building, to be fair, on work done by the previous Administration—has a real focus on helping local authorities to make sensible investments. Does my hon. Friend agree that given the various sagas that we have seen—Thurrock and solar, for example, or interest rate swaps by Hammersmith and Fulham back in the day—that is a very sensible objective for the National Wealth Fund?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) will, I am sure, be speaking to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill.
Peter Lamb
I am fighting my way back to it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to address my hon. Friend’s point, having been a local authority leader for quite some time, I understand the pressures on councils to make such investments if their income is being reduced in other ways. Clearly, however, many lessons have had to be learned. I hope that the fund will provide opportunities to use public money far better.
If Members will please allow me to get back to the substance of the Bill, I will proceed with all due haste. My constituency is surrounded by fields, and consequently the provisions that affect those areas also affect my constituents. We have livestock in the constituency, particularly in the nature centre in one of the town’s main parks. It has just been rebranded as Tilgate zoo, but for a long time it was the nature and rare breeds centre, where I have spent many happy hours in various capacities. It is where I got married; that was a high point. It is where I was bitten by a turkey at the age of two; that was a low point. I am sure it all balances out in the long run.
I am afraid we do not have any alpacas or llamas, although I would love us to get some. We are supposed to be rolling out different country exhibits as time goes on. I am reminded that alpacas and llamas are no laughing matter. The Inca empire never developed the wheel; the entire empire was built off the back of alpacas and llamas. As such, they are worthy of great respect.
What we did have, however, was sheep and cows, but some pretty harrowing things happened to the livestock at the nature centre. In one case, a sheep was set on fire while it was still alive. Although the Bill does not directly deal with that, the mentality behind the disrespect of such animals is worthy of note. Far more often, dogs have been set on the animals, or at least people have not been in control of their dogs. We eventually had to remove the sheep entirely from the publicly accessible areas.
In fact, we went a bit further than that, because the local authority owns the park. We also had a problem around the main lake, where we kept finding that cygnets and baby ducklings were being mauled by dogs that had come off leash. We took the decision to implement a public space protection order, mandating all dog owners to keep their dogs on leads in those areas to try to reduce the risk to other animals. I will be honest and say that it was not well received. We are re-consulting on it now, but I suspect it probably still will not be desperately well received.
The big problem around these issues is that people love their dogs, and they think their dog could never possibly do anything wrong. I am certain that they are right about that in the overwhelming majority of cases, but there will always be situations where an owner will not be in control, something will happen and others pay the price—people are put at risk or we lose animals. Despite having voluntary provisions in these areas, experiences show that these are insufficient to the task of requiring people to keep their dogs under control. The provisions needs to cover all the cases; they cannot just deal with the odd exception.
It is really important that the Bill puts in place provisions to enable the police to take appropriate action to monitor, investigate and resolve situations where livestock have been affected. But it is not just about putting provisions in place. We have a habit sometimes of producing regulations but not allocating resource, and if we do not allocate the resource, we do not actually produce any better outcomes. A big concern of mine is that if we create laws that we do not then enforce, we encourage lawlessness in the long run. We should have sufficient regulation that we are capable of enforcing and are prepared to enforce in order to maintain the value and meaning of the law to our constituents.
This issue is not just about animal welfare. While it is tragic when incidents occur than affect livestock, it is a fundamentally a matter of economics as well—the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East. This is an industry; these are people’s livelihoods, and as we are well aware from debates in this place over the last year, they operate on extremely tight margins, and these people cannot afford the kind of losses that this abuse can cause.
It is important that there are systems of regulation in place to enable the industry to operate effectively into the future, because this is not simply about what happens to the industry; agriculture is a matter of national security for all of us. As an island, we have had to learn this lesson many times. As a country, we have always had to import some food from overseas, and there has always been trade. As far back as the neolithic age, we imported a certain amount of herring from Scandinavia. We saw very clearly in world war two the impact on society as a whole when U-boats were able to disrupt the trade system with the empire and convoys and sailors had to put their lives at risk to ensure that people would survive. This country made efforts at the time, with campaigns encouraging people to grown their own food, and efforts have been made since to try to create a large-enough agricultural sector in the United Kingdom so that we will always be able to feed our population. The development of buffer stock systems over the wars ensured that market fluctuations did not drive people out of business, and they continue to operate on some level to this day.
The impact on our national security was driven home to us during covid, when those who were working throughout the food distribution sector were designated as key workers. It is regrettable that we as a society have rowed back from realising that people in these logistical and retail roles play a far more fundamental role in our day-to-day ability to survive than many of the roles that we choose to promote in society. Ultimately, we need laws that are going to support those in this industry to thrive. In summary, I agree with the proposals in the Bill—and I have attempted to get through my speech at the fastest possible pace to make that point.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for introducing the Bill, which has enjoyed wide support from Members across the House.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reminded us of the need to keep control of dogs on paths and country lanes. The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) stressed the importance of these improved protections for her farmers, as they are for farmers in Somerset. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) emphasised the need for responsible access to the countryside, about which I agree. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) told us about the need for strengthened police powers.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) took us on a gentle country ramble in his speech, and told us that his constituency is entirely urban and he knows little of farming. Let me tell him not to worry, because he is clearly eminently qualified to be Labour’s next Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—he could scarcely know less or do worse than the current incumbent.
I pay tribute to those groups that have long championed this reform. They include the National Sheep Association, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare.
As I have already mentioned once today, Britain is a nation of animal lovers and the Conservatives are proud of our record in Government of further improving Britain’s world-leading position on animal welfare. This Bill follows in that proud tradition, because livestock worrying is a blight on our countryside and a blight on our farmers. In a recent survey by the National Sheep Association, 87% of respondents said they had experienced a dog attack on their livestock in the past 12 months. One in 20 of those respondents said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such attacks, which is truly appalling.
These attacks cause distress and injury to livestock and, in the most extreme cases, they can cause the death of animals. That is not only traumatic for farmers, but it can be expensive too. NFU Mutual data shows that insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023. Farmers have enough to worry about with this Government’s new family farm tax, without the additional burden of attacks on their livestock by dogs.
The Bill makes several improvements to existing law. First, it introduces a vital distinction between livestock worrying and attacking. This change will help to strengthen enforcement where serious harm has occurred. Clause 2 expands police powers to seize dogs they reasonably expect to have been involved in such offences. This important amendment helps to close existing legal loopholes and ensures swift police action to prevent further harm.
Clause 3 empowers police and veterinary professionals to take samples or impressions from wounded animals or suspected dogs to aid criminal investigations. This change will make it significantly easier to gather evidence and bring charges. The National Farmers Union has rightly championed the measure, noting that many livestock worrying incidents go unreported due to a lack of confidence in enforcement. The possibility of using DNA testing could be a game changer for successful prosecutions, and I urge the Government to support further research and work with police forces to implement the results.
Clause 4 allows officers with a warrant to search properties for dogs believed to be involved in an attack. This is a crucial power to ensure justice is served and will help end the widespread perception among farmers that little can be done once an attack occurs. Another major improvement is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the legislation’s scope. Livestock are often moved between fields using country lanes. Under current rules, if an animal is attacked outside a field, the burden unfairly falls on the farmer. This Bill corrects that and rightly places responsibility on dog owners to always control their pets near livestock.
The Bill broadens the definition of livestock to include camelids, such as alpacas and llamas, which are increasingly part of rural enterprises. I particularly welcome that clause, especially on behalf of establishments such as the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow, in my constituency.
The Bill introduces many essential enforcement powers that will allow our police to crack down on worrying, but we must not forget about prevention. Responsible dog ownership is key. The previous Government’s working group brought together police, stakeholders and welfare organisations to improve education on how to keep pets and livestock safe. In Wales, a 64% drop in livestock worrying incidents between 2023 and 2024 has been credited to outreach campaigns, dog training courses and effective rural crime teams. We must continue to amplify educational messages such as those in the country code. I call on the Government to make sure they continue that vital work and to look at how we might further encourage responsible dog ownership.
My constituency has a large farming community, and I have seen at first hand the impact of livestock worrying on my constituents. I recently met Austen Lockyer, who farms in my constituency. He told me that he struggles when irresponsible owners allow their dogs off leads on public footpaths through his fields, treating them like recreation grounds and worrying his sheep. I know the Bill will be a comfort to him and those like him and that we are acting to shift the burden of responsibility to dog owners.
I am pleased to have supported the Bill since it was introduced and through Committee, and it is a pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box and confirm that the Opposition support the Bill in full. I urge colleagues from all parties to support the Bill and to bring an end to the scourge of livestock worrying in rural communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a privilege to speak on Third Reading. I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for taking the Bill through the House.
I really was not going to get party political on this day of unity when we were all in so much agreement. However, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), has prompted me to do so, and who am I to turn away such an invitation? It is marvellous that he thinks the Bill is such a good idea and that he is fully supportive of it. I say gently to him that his party had 14 years in which to support Bills like this and the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill that we debated earlier. It was quite interesting to hear him try to defend the previous Government’s record at DEFRA—we all know that every single river, lake and sea was filled with sewage. I am more than happy to discuss the record of the previous Government.
I will return to my tone of unity. I thank everyone who contributed to getting the Bill to Third Reading and everyone who was involved in Committee. I have been briefed on how much support the Bill was shown in Committee, so I thank all Members from across the House for their work in that.
I thank the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for mentioning his membership of the NFU food and farming fellowship and the support of the NFU. I completely agree with him on the difference that capturing dogs’ DNA will make to enforcement. It is important that that is adopted and developed. I am tempted back into getting political again: I agree with my hon. Friend that rural crime was neglected for 14 years under the previous Government, but we are starting to take it more seriously.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for engaging frequently with the NFU and representing its views, as well as those of farmers across her constituency. I agree with her that it is important that the Bill covers paths and roads as well. I will not get involved in the debate on which is the most beautiful constituency. How could I, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you and I know that Yorkshire is God’s own country? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about responsible access to the countryside. When we enjoying the beauty of nature, it is crucial that we all obey the countryside code. I hope that all Members promote the code across their constituencies.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the bagging and binning of dog poo. That reminds me of when I attended the Filey folk festival and one of the most amusing songs I have heard for a long time, which was about the dog poo tree. The song was dedicated to all those people who go on a walk, collect their dog’s poo in a dog poo bag, and then hang the bag on the dog poo tree at the end of the walk. It reminds us all to not just bag it, but take it away with us.
Mike Reader
On that point, I went to the Hardingstone village fair this weekend—I had a pop-up surgery. I want to thank the constituent who came to tell me about the dog poo epidemic in Hardingstone. She asked, “What’s the Government going to do to help?” I confirmed that we will make sure that councils have the power to address this issue, and that I will raise it with West Northamptonshire council to make sure that it takes action. It is clearly impacting residents in the village of Hardingstone.
Emma Hardy
I completely agree that it is incredibly unpleasant. As always, it is only a minority of people who fail to take away their dog’s poo.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for the tip on visiting the beautiful print art in Glasgow. I hope that his father-in-law is impressed by his support for this Bill, if not by his ability as a farmer. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his 23rd wedding anniversary on 12 July.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) talked about the psychological boost that we get when we are near nature. He is completely right. It is such a positive feeling to be out in the wild. I always talk to my local Yorkshire wildlife group about the importance of “tangle”; where some people see mess, others see biodiversity and nature. We get the most nature where there is a tangle of different plants growing; we get very little on a mowed lawn. We get nature where we see weeds, different habitats, and different areas for species to grow and develop. I am convinced that this is a reason not to do as much gardening; we are then supporting biodiversity and the need for tangle. Members have also mentioned the importance of planting more forest and talked about how we can raise the amount of biodiversity on our new estates, all of which I completely agree with.
Sarah Russell
The Minister mentions forests. I want to congratulate Trees for Congleton, which has just planted its 30,000th tree in Congleton. It set out a few years ago to plant one tree for every citizen in the town, and it has achieved that. I think that is quite remarkable.
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Trees for Congleton. Thirty thousand trees is an incredible achievement, and let us hope it keeps going.
The number of livestock kept in the UK has nearly doubled since the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 was passed, and there has been a large increase in dog ownership. The National Sheep Association’s 2025 survey indicates that 96% of respondents have experienced between one and 10 incidents of sheep worrying in the last 12 months. That highlights the urgent need to modernise the legislation in order to address this issue. On average, respondents reported four sheep deaths per year due to sheep worrying by dogs—an increase on previous years—and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack. These figures do not account for miscarriages of lambs, or for the other secondary impacts of livestock worrying.
The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can have devastating outcomes and result in injury or death, which can have a detrimental impact on farmers. Livestock worrying can also have wider implications, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds being smothered. That demonstrates how harmful such incidents can be. It is clear that we need stronger measures to attack livestock worrying and the devastating effects on farmers and livestock, and this Bill will deliver these measures.
The Government recognise the distress that livestock worrying can cause animals and their keepers. All reported crime must be taken seriously, investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts, so that perpetrators receive the appropriate penalties. This Bill amends the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which underpins livestock worrying offences and enforcement, and I will summarise the three main areas that the Bill will address before going into more detail on the measures.
The Bill will primarily focus on three areas. It will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly found. It will strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs, and the collection of evidence, to improve enforcement, and as a deterrent, it will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. Those three key areas will strengthen the legislation and deterrence around livestock worrying and attacks on livestock.
The Bill will broaden the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths. Dogs and dog walkers are commonly found walking on roads and paths, and this new measure will help to protect livestock when they are being moved—for instance, cows going into a milking parlour, or sheep being moved across the fields. That is an important new protection.
The Bill will extend the species protected by the Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas. The British Alpaca Society estimates that there might be as many as 45,000 alpacas owned by members in England, and a further 20,000 owned by non-members.
The Bill will also amend the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. “Attacking” is part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.
The new police powers will be a huge help to the police. The primary focus of the Bill is to strengthen those powers to enable the police to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. They include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Furthermore, in a survey carried out by the National Sheep Association in 2025, 98% of respondents agreed that there was an urgent need for additional police powers—it is generally unheard of to get 98% of people to agree on something.
The police can currently only seize a dog found or suspected to have worried livestock for the purpose of identifying the owner. The police have limited powers at their disposal to address reoffending when the same dog is found attacking livestock repeatedly, or the same owner has several dogs that worry livestock. Under this Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again, they have the power to seize and detain the dog. The dog can be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. We hope this power will address the issue of reoffending and dog owners who disregard the law, and will help to address the most serious instances of livestock worrying.
The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that sample or impression might provide evidence of an offence. The sample or impression could then be used as evidence to support a prosecution. Samples may be retained until either the police investigation into a potential offence has finished or court proceedings have finished or been withdrawn.
Finally, the Bill will extend the powers of entry. Under current legislation, the police can enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog owner. The reasons for extending the power of entry in relation to this offence is to ensure that the police can collect the necessary evidence to prosecute these crimes. The Bill will extend police powers to allow the police to enter and search a premises, with a warrant, to seize and take samples from a dog if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The expanded powers of entry will allow the police to seize items that may be evidence of an offence—for example, a dog collar, or a towel with blood on it.
These powers are important for improving the conviction rate and reducing the prevalence of reoffending, so that we protect our respected farmers from the horrific consequence of livestock worrying. In the light of our improvements to enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying more effectively, we hope that livestock owners or bystanders will feel encouraged to report more incidents, and will know that the reports will be taken seriously.
The Bill will also increase penalties. The penalty is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will determine an appropriate fine amount, in line with sentencing guidelines, that takes into account the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The courts can already impose a compensation order on an offender, requiring them to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence. Compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence, including any representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of a single compensation order handed down to an offender, and the Bill will not change that.
A survey carried out by the National Farmers Union in 2025 found that in England, the midlands was the worst-hit region by cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £425,000. It was followed by the south-east, where the cost is an estimated £225,000. Farm animals in the south-east of England worth an estimated £139,000 were severely injured or killed in dog attacks in 2024. That is up 23% on the previous year. Furthermore, the National Sheep Association found that more than half of all respondents felt that increased fines, punishment and seizure powers would reduce sheep worrying incidents.
Of course, many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. Dog owners have a responsibility to ensure that their dogs are kept safe and under control. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. It says that visitors should always check local signs, as there are locations where they must keep their dog on a lead for part or all of the year. We recognise that there is a careful balance to be struck between protecting the wider public and their livestock from dog attacks, the freedom that people enjoy when they are walking their dogs, and, of course, the welfare of those dogs, including their freedom to exhibit normal behaviours.
The new police powers that the Bill will introduce will ensure an effective response to reported cases. They are vital measures that will help improve enforcement and protect the livelihoods of our valuable farming communities. Countryside access came up. The Bill would cover a scenario in which the person in charge of the dog caused it to attack livestock that had strayed on to a road or path. The 1953 Act protects livestock that may have strayed from one field to another if it is agricultural land as defined in the Act, subject to certain exemptions and offences.
The countryside code encourages people to check local signs and leave gates as they find them. The public right of way guidance highlights the responsibility of landowners regarding waymarking and signs, including the responsibility to use signs to warn people of dangers that are not obvious. The welfare of livestock is the responsibility of the owner, and they must take necessary measures to protect their livestock. Owners of livestock should of course take reasonable care to see that their livestock do not stray. There is a common law duty on anyone who keeps animals in a field next to a road to take reasonable care to prevent their escape, in order to avoid damage. This private Member’s Bill focuses on delivering the greatest impact by improving the police’s powers to investigate and support convictions.
Let me say, in answer to a question asked, that it will not be an offence to fail to report an incident. We would always encourage dog walkers to be responsible in such circumstances by bringing an incident to the attention of the livestock owner and the police, so that the owner can ensure that the injured livestock can receive the care or treatment they need. That is important for welfare reasons. It would be difficult to enforce a legal reporting requirement.
On other species being protected, sheep are specifically protected from dogs at large because they are most susceptible to distress in the presence of dogs, and are prone to abort their young when distressed. Primary legislation could be considered in future to add other species if necessary. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends. The countryside code highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock, and we would encourage this practice to ensure that dogs and walkers are kept safe.
It is important to note that the Bill will not amend section 1(2A) of the 1953 Act, which sets out an exemption to section 1(2)(c) for guide dogs. Owners of a guide dog will remain exempt from criminal liability if their guide dog is at large in a field or enclosure where there are sheep. However, the offence of chasing or attacking livestock applies to guide dogs, and the owner of the guide dog would be committing an offence if the dog chased or attacked livestock. Ultimately, it remains for the courts to decide what can be considered a guide dog.
I recognise the strong public support for animal welfare in this country, as reflected in the volume of correspondence received by my Department and the sustained engagement from stakeholders. Key stakeholders, including the livestock and farming sector, the animal welfare sector, the police and the veterinary sector, have been engaged in respect of these measures.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I apologise to the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for being late; I had hoped to be here earlier.
The Minister talked about the importance of animal welfare to people up and down the country, not least in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Will she give us a flavour of when the Government will publish our animal welfare strategy?
Emma Hardy
I hate to give my hon. Friend the parliamentary answer “in due course”, but he will have to forgive me.
As illustrated by the two Bills we have taken through the House this morning and the actions we have taken in our first year, we are very committed to animal welfare, which is of huge importance to the country. As we heard in the previous debate, we are a nation of animal lovers. We will not revisit the names of all our pets, but we genuinely have a kind and caring nature. One of my favourite events in Parliament is when we have the cats and dogs of Westminster competitions, which are more fiercely fought than some by-elections.
The depth of concern about this issue has been evident in today’s debate. The Government are fully committed to supporting this important Bill as it progresses through the other place. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans to improve animal welfare in a generation. The Department has initiated a series of meetings with key animal welfare stakeholders as part of the development of an overarching approach to animal welfare, demonstrating our commitment to improving animal welfare across the board, and the Prime Minister has committed to publish an animal welfare strategy later this year—or “in due course”.
I thank all Members across the House for their support, engagement and constructive comments. Once again, I am also grateful for the support from farmers, welfare stakeholders, police and others who welcome the Bill. This Bill will have a lasting impact for those affected by livestock worrying, and I am delighted to support it. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call Aphra Brandreth to wind up the debate.
Aphra Brandreth
With the leave the House, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the majority of her remarks? Of course, we disagree about the Conservative record on animal welfare, but I thank her for her personal support and that of the Government for the Bill.
I would like to thank to a number of people who have contributed to this legislation. The Bill commenced its journey in the last Parliament as a private Member’s Bill under the sponsorship of Baroness Coffey, and it is fitting that she has expressed her intent to take the Bill through the other place. I am grateful for her support and wish to put on the record my sincere thanks.
I thank again all Members who have been involved in and spoken during the passage of the Bill. It has been a pleasure to work with colleagues, and I am incredibly grateful for their involvement. I also want to acknowledge the contributions made today that rightly emphasise that the Bill is not about targeting dog owners. I am a dog lover myself, and I know that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible and care deeply about animal welfare, whether it is dogs, sheep or, indeed, alpacas. The Bill is about ensuring that we can all enjoy the countryside responsibly.
I thank the team in the Public Bill Office and at DEFRA who have worked so hard to progress the Bill. I also thank my brilliant, very hard-working team for all their help, and particularly Joel Hetherington for his invaluable support.
Finally, I thank the farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury who have shared their experiences with me. Their insights into the devastating impact of attacks and the difficulties of securing prosecutions under the current law have been invaluable in shaping the legislation. It really has been a team effort, and the difference we can make as a result of this Bill will be felt across farming communities. It is for them that we have brought this legislation forward, and I could not be prouder to have played my part in delivering it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before we begin, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of the Report stage debate is only amendment 1 in the name of the Member in charge. The scope of the Third Reading debate to follow will be the whole Bill as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to try to catch my eye.
Clause 2
Elections to the Scottish Parliament
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 2, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 114 (subordinate legislation: particular provisions), in subsection (1), after ‘sections’ insert ‘12B,’”.
This enables regulations made under new section 12B of the Scotland Act 1998 (as inserted by clause 2) to be exercised by modifying provision made by or under that Act.
I am pleased to be in the Chamber today. I thank all Members who have taken part in the passage of the Bill so far. It addresses an issue that needs to be resolved at pace to ensure that electors in Scotland and Wales can benefit in time for their devolved parliamentary elections next May. I am grateful to the House for the unanimous support I have received.
I hope to complete the Commons passage of this important Bill today, but before that is possible, a minor and technical amendment must be made. Amendment 1 to clause 2 amends the power in proposed new section 12B of the Scotland Act 1998 to expressly indicate that the power can be used to amend secondary legislation made under the Act. The amendment came at the request of the Scottish Government to correct an oversight concerning how their devolved legislation operates and how the Bill will be implemented.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government’s focus, under the Secretary of State for Scotland, on working closely with the Scottish Government—where possible, to be pragmatic—is important? It has secured an amendment to the Bill that will be of benefit to the voters in Baillieston in my constituency, who go to the polling stations at Broomhouse Hall and in the wonderful primary schools of Garrowhill, Swinton, Caledonia and St Bridget’s.
Tracy Gilbert
Yes, I agree. There has been support from the Scottish Government and we have been working in co-operation. How the Bill will be implemented by the Scottish Government is a core part of the amendment.
Without the amendment, the Bill could still deliver on its purpose. However, the Scottish Government would have to repeal and restate the entire Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 with renewed provisions. The amendment seeks to remedy that oversight and ensure that the Scottish Government are able to implement the Bill in their own devolved legislation, so that Scottish electors may benefit in time for the May 2026 Scottish Parliament elections.
It is unfortunate to need to make a technical amendment this late in the process of parliamentary scrutiny, particularly given that the error could have been identified some time ago, but I am glad to be able to assist the Scottish Government with this matter. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on all her work. She has shown admirable commitment during the passage of the Bill so far, and her commitment to delivering it for the benefit of voters in Scotland is evident. I also take the opportunity to reaffirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. I am grateful to have seen support from across the House for the changes that it will make possible.
Amendment 1 is further evidence of the diligence that my hon. Friend has shown towards the Bill. I am particularly grateful to her for accommodating the Scottish Government’s request for the amendment at this late stage. She has clearly explained that it is a minor and technical amendment that will simplify the implementation process for the Scottish Government. The change in clause 2 makes it explicit that the new section 12B power introduced by the Bill can amend secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act.
The amendment has been considered by my officials, who are content that it does not present any kind of novel approach to legislation or set any precedent. It is simply a sensible change that will avoid unnecessary restatement and then reconsideration of existing legislation by the Scottish Parliament, thereby increasing the chances of the important changes that the Bill will make possible being delivered in time for the May 2026 Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru elections. I am pleased that the issue has been identified at this stage, and confirm that the Government support the amendment.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Third Reading
Tracy Gilbert
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions during the various stages of the Bill’s passage. I also thank the civil servants in the registration and franchise policy team and the Public Bill Office in Parliament for providing me with so much support with the Bill—I can confirm that I have received quite an education in the legislative process. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for her steadfast support throughout the passage of this Bill.
The introduction of the online absent voting application service has given electors in England, Scotland and Wales the option to apply online for a postal or proxy vote in UK general elections. Electors in England are also given the option to use the online service to apply for a postal or proxy vote for all other types of election that they can participate in; unfortunately, the same cannot be said for voters in Scotland and Wales. As it stands, voters in Scotland and Wales face a fragmented system in which they may apply online for a postal or proxy vote for a UK general election but still rely on filling out paper forms for their local council or devolved Parliament elections. The Bill enables that inconsistency to be ended.
In short, the Bill will allow for the extension of the same online application options to voters in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections. The goal is to have the measures in place ahead of the devolved elections scheduled for May 2026. I have emphasised this before, but I again stress the importance of devolution. The responsibility for local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru is rightfully devolved to the respective nations. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that devolution is respected, with the proposals having been discussed with Ministers from both the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Alongside support from those Governments, the Bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its passage.
John Grady
My hon. Friend—who recently had her birthday—is quite right to emphasise the importance of good working between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government to ensure that the voting rules are harmonised. Will she outline how that benefits voters at Eastbank primary school and Eastbank academy in Shettleston in my wonderful seat?
Tracy Gilbert
I would imagine it means they will get an extra day off school for the elections, which most kids enjoy.
The Bill enhances democracy. Last year, when the general election was called, it was quite tricky for Scottish voters because there was a tight time window; the Bill will allow people to apply more easily for access to a ballot if they are going to be away on holiday. It has also been welcomed by the electoral sector, which recognises the benefits of expanding a streamlined and secure system. This is testament to what can be achieved when we work collaboratively across Governments and parties in the interests of democratic participation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned. I hope the Bill will proceed through this House and swiftly move to the other place, and I urge Members to support its passage today.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on getting this Bill to its Third Reading and getting both sides of the House behind it, although I note that there are no SNP Members in the Chamber. I am a proud Member for an English constituency, but we in Newcastle-under-Lyme have seen the benefit of a system that defends and supports the franchise and ensures that people are able to have their say. As such, I wanted to gently contribute to this debate, to give my support to my hon. Friend and encourage colleagues to get behind the Bill.
Democracy is important. It is so important that we discuss the Bill, ensuring that people up and down the United Kingdom, including in Wales and Scotland, are able to hold their elected politicians to account to ensure that their decisions reflect their views. We do so on the first anniversary of this Labour Government—that speaks very much to the power of the vote. The Bill is about ensuring that people have as much support as possible to vote, to have their say, to shape the future and, as I say, to hold their elected representatives to account at local and devolved level in Scotland and Wales.
I used to work for a Welsh MP, and I lived in Scotland and also worked for a Scottish MP before my election to this House, so I well recall the challenges and experiences.
John Grady
My hon. Friend is the Member of Parliament for the wonderful place of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Does he agree that the purpose of the Bill is to bring some much-needed consistency to voting arrangements across our family of nations? Voters in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Newcastle upon Tyne or the wonderful Newcastleton in Scottish Borders should all be able to vote in a reasonably consistent way.
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am an English MP; we are talking about Scotland and Wales; and my wife is from Northern Ireland. Our four nations are very much represented in my short contribution to this debate.
I have seen personally the ease of the postal and proxy vote system. I love to vote in person, but those in the west midlands Labour party are hard taskmasters and encourage us to vote by post so that we can be knocking on doors, seeing my hon. Friend the Minister beating Torys where and when we can. However, making it easier to vote for people who have health or family issues, or who are called away for work and the rest, is vital. We have seen the consequences—the threats to our democracy—of people not thinking that politics represents them and their issues, and does not involve or include them. We must think about what we can do to neutralise those concerns and those fears, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) has done so brilliantly in her Bill, notwithstanding her technical amendment, which was supported by the House. It speaks for itself.
I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am here to support my hon. Friend before I get the train home, and I look forward to the Bill successfully passing its Third Reading.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward the Bill, which I rise to support. It seeks not only to modernise our democratic processes but to safeguard the rights of every citizen across the devolved nations of the UK. At its heart, the Bill is about strengthening participation and ensuring that no one is left without a voice in our democratic institutions. In particular, it seeks to streamline and clarify the mechanisms for absentee voting—by post or by proxy—in the Scottish Parliament and in the Senedd Cymru elections, to align them more effectively with the broader UK framework while respecting the integrity of the devolved powers.
The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy, but a right is meaningful only if it can be exercised in practice. Too many voters across Scotland and Wales, especially those in rural areas, students, those with disabilities and military personnel, have faced avoidable barriers to postal or proxy voting. Inconsistent regulations and outdated application processes have led to confusion and delays, and the result is that people are prevented from participating in our democracy. They may be serving overseas or temporarily relocated for work or on caring duties for a loved one—playing a vital part in our society or our economy—yet they are penalised for it by being unable to vote.
The Bill’s reforms are sensible and pragmatic and aim to standardise the application procedures for such votes, improving the accessibility and transparency of the system but keeping it inclusive and fair. I am well assured that in doing so, the Bill does not seek to override or diminish the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru, but rather offer a legislative framework that can be adopted in co-operation with them. It should be seen as an opportunity for collaboration—a chance for all corners of the UK to work together to improve the democratic process for every voter. A voter in Aberdeen should have exactly the same confidence in the integrity and accessibility of their vote as my constituents in Aylesbury have. Uniformity strengthens, rather than weakens, our Union and our democracy.
I want to make a wider point about the context. We have seen a decline in voter turnout in recent years, especially among younger and transient populations. I think that stems from the wider challenge that we have in society of young people, and people more broadly, feeling a bit disillusioned and disengaged from politics.
John Grady
My hon. Friend mentions the lack of enthusiasm for voting among some young people. That is a real problem in Scotland. Does she agree that one potential explanation is the catastrophic decline of education standards, the insolvency of universities in Scotland and so forth? That may be contributing to a decline in voter enthusiasm.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree; the education system plays a big part. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which brings me to a related point.
I recently ran a work experience programme for a fantastic group of 16 to 18-year-olds in Aylesbury, and I asked the students to come up with ideas for what more the Government could do for young people in this country. One group came straight to this point of politics, democracy and law. I thank the young people in that group—Ruqaiya Begum, Jacob McNorton, Munashe Ndoro, Georgia Bolland and Alex Foster—for their suggestions. Their ask of the Government was that we give the school curriculum a much greater focus on voting systems, political awareness, civic engagement, the rule of law and human rights. They were spot on, and we had great discussions about how that should help to increase understanding, engagement and participation in our democracy. I shared my hopes that our manifesto commitment to lower the voting age from 18 to 16 in general elections will help to do just that. I really hope that we as a Government will take that forward as quickly as possible.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for bringing forward this important change. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) agree that we need to continue to have the conversation about what democracy means to people, and that creating consistency in the voting system aids that conversation?
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I do agree. It is exactly that: if we are going to rebuild trust in democracy, that has to start with elections, and with a voting system that people have faith in.
We have discussed the urgent need to rebuild engagement and trust in our democracy. That is fundamental, and the Bill, which will make absent voting more user-friendly and dependable, is a really important, concrete step forward. I urge colleagues across the House, regardless of which party or region they represent, to support it and help to ensure that no voter anywhere in the UK is absent from participating in our democracy simply because they are absent on polling day.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing the Bill and welcome the opportunity to raise issues of fairness and equality in the UK’s democracy.
We have seen in England that absent voting, by post or proxy, has empowered thousands of people to make their voices heard, even when life gets in the way, whether in the form of illness, work commitments, accessibility concerns, disability, caring commitments, simply being away on holiday or, in the case of my city, serving in another country. No one should be forced to choose between voting and the demands of everyday life, so it is only right that voters in Wales and Scotland have the same protections and access. We must not allow a postcode lottery when it comes to democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) noted, if we as a Government are serious about strengthening trust in politics, we must make voting easier, not harder.
On that note of making voting easier, it would be remiss of me if I were not to welcome the Government’s move to allow the veterans ID card to be used as valid voter identification. That is really welcomed by many Portsmouth North residents who have served our country. It is absolutely right that those who have served our country are not excluded from democratic participation due to ID restrictions. Many veterans, particularly those who are older or more vulnerable, told me how they faced real challenges accessing approved forms of ID, so recognising the veterans ID card as valid is a small but significant step towards honouring that service and ensuring their voices are heard in the ballot box.
Although the Bill does not address voting age, I want to place on record my strong support for extending voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds across the whole of the UK to ensure fairness, whether in absent voting or by age. Young people in Scotland and Wales already vote in devolved and local elections, and it is time young people in England and Northern Ireland had the same voice across all elections. The Bill is a step towards a fairer and more accessible democracy. It is a step we must take.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on bringing forward the Bill. Devolution has been an interest of mine for a very long time. It was the topic of my master’s dissertation and my first job outside politics, so I am thrilled to be back dealing with it all again as a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
The Bill reminds me that one of the main arguments in favour of introducing devolution was to free up parliamentary time. It was considered bizarre that there we were, in the late 20th century, when devolution was being debated, with feudalism still in Scotland because no Government could possibly find the parliamentary time in the UK Parliament to try to resolve those issues and other issues of concern to residents in Scotland. That highlighted the importance of producing bodies that could grant that time to consider those issues, and many other issues, on a local basis of what could be the best for residents in those areas.
The fact that these measures are coming via a private Member’s Bill continues to highlight the importance of trying to secure better parliamentary time for different parts of the UK for the issues that matter to them, and the importance of devolution to ensuring that matters of relevance for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and hopefully for England in due course—are addressed. I note that the amendment continues with that approach, empowering devolved Governments’ ability to implement changes in their own way. It highlights how it remains entirely possible for the nations to have the right powers to deliver for their citizens in the right way without having to engage with all the problems that would come with any approach to independence, so long may that approach continue.
I am glad to see the consultation that has taken place with devolved Administrations, as I believe consent is an incredibly important part of the process of ensuring that our devolution settlement operates well. I believe that that is critical. Technically, as a unitary system we have parliamentary sovereignty in this place and the UK Parliament can still legislate unilaterally in these areas, but if the devolved settlement is to survive, every part of the United Kingdom must be prepared to play their role in that partnership.
I cannot claim to be a fan of the Elections Act 2022, which brought many of the provisions into place. During my time in local government, I was the chair of the working group that the Local Government Association set up to go through the provisions in the Bill, which was assisted by representatives of returning officers and representatives of electoral services administrators. It would be fair to say that their views of most of the provisions were wholly negative in the context of what the Bill sought to do, and many of the arguments did not seem to make a huge amount of sense at the time. None the less, we did produce a number of cross-party conclusions. Regrettably, they were not adopted by the LGA until far too late in the process to have had any viable impact.
The aspects in the Bill are, I believe, positive. They should help to enable greater access to absent voting for residents in Scotland and Wales, and hopefully avoid some of the confusion that arises.
As a country, we have an increasingly confusing set of election arrangements. Many different types of electoral systems are employed, there are different age arrangements in different places and there are different rules around this, that and the other. When people think that one set of rules is in play and in fact, given a particular context, there is another, that creates growing problems with confidence in our electoral system. Although it is a challenge, it is important to our democracy that, as far as possible, the general public understand how the systems operate, how they select their governors and how they express their voice. That is a critical part of the UK retaining genuine democratic accountability.
The more that can be done to harmonise arrangements across the entire United Kingdom, and to ensure that there is a much simpler approach to people expressing their views to us, the greater the level of confidence in the system. Having two different sets of arrangements around casting votes cannot do much to encourage people to engage in the process. The very low levels of turnout at the last general election, which was a year ago today, suggest that there are issues that need to be addressed in how we try to engage people in the process and encourage them to participate.
One big problem is that if we do not have a viable system to enable people to cast their votes, taking into account people’s differing capacities to attend polling stations, we risk having a bias in the system in favour of one set of groups and against another. Younger able-bodied people and those who are less busy will be in a better position to participate and submit their votes, meaning the electoral system will gradually move in favour of only part of the population. That will deliver outcomes in those elections that may result in the system no longer acting as a voice for the whole of society, only a part of that society.
We are all aware of some areas where that already happens, where there is higher turnout by some groups relative to other groups, resulting in them having preferential status in our electioneering. The more that can be done to make it as easy as possible for people to cast their vote, the greater the likelihood that we will have a more representative sample of electors participating in the system, and that all our different institutions will genuinely represent the views of constituents within the country, and consequentially within policy.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith on introducing the Bill. It is an important step towards addressing many of the issues, and I hope further steps will be forthcoming to increase greater accountability and democratic participation in our democracy.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) for introducing this important piece of legislation. For hon. Members who do not know Edinburgh North and Leith, the word “and” is very important in the name of that constituency: Leith is quite separate from Edinburgh—it is a separate city and a wonderful city too. I have many fond memories of being in my hon. Friend’s constituency, because I studied in Edinburgh and I was involved in the Children’s Holiday Venture charity, which is still going strong. Students would take children who had been referred by social workers out swimming, ice skating or away to the countryside for the weekend. I loved my time with that charity, known as “The Students” in Pilton, in my hon. Friend’s seat.
The Bill tackles the important issue of trust in politics. In a way, it is mechanistic, in that it looks at mechanisms for voting, but trust in politics is damaged if people feel that they cannot exercise their right to vote because they have been excluded by being disabled, on holiday or for other reasons. People’s trust in politics is damaged if they feel that they are prevented from voting for reasons that they, quite properly, view as being archaic and anachronistic.
These issues were raised with me during the last general election campaign, as it took place during the Scottish school holidays. We have different school holiday dates in Scotland. They start earlier because our harvests are earlier—not very important in Glasgow East, where there are no farms whatsoever. People felt excluded from voting because they had gone on holiday, and the arrangements did not run as well as they ought to have done.
The Bill gives the Scottish and Welsh Governments concurrent powers to introduce regulations to enable applications for postal and proxy votes for the devolved Administrations to be made online using the Government Digital Service. That will make it easier for my constituents in Carmyle, a wonderful mining village, to vote. The Bill also aligns postal voting renewal cycles. This is confusing for me, but postal voting cycles in Scotland are not aligned, and postal votes are very important for many people. That will help, for example, a postal voter in Mount Vernon who cannot get to Mount Vernon primary school to exercise their right to vote. That is important for confidence in democracy.
Other examples of divergence are set out well in the explanatory notes, which were pulled together by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the relevant Department. It is important to minimise divergence in this area and harmonise the rules, because people will question our democracy if those in, for example, Wishaw and Tollcross—I spoke about it earlier, with its wonderful park—are subject to different rules from, say, relatives in Northumberland, Newcastle, Corby or London.
That has been the subject of comment in reports by the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which does much important work in scrutinising election rules. I understand that PACAC also took an interest in it. It is important that these rules operate effectively so that, for example, constituents of mine in Calton and Bridgeton—voting, perhaps, at Bridgeton library, Sacred Heart primary school or Dalmarnock primary school—can cast their votes. It is important that those bodies keep this under control.
The Bill results from close working with the UK Government and the Scottish Government. The Secretary of State for Scotland has put a lot of work into ensuring that the Governments work together where possible for the good of people in Scotland.
Peter Lamb
My hon. Friend has highlighted PACAC’s work scrutinising elections. As Parliament’s Select Committee that is overseeing this part of the process, we produced recommendations on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Given that the Bill will devolve to Scottish Government representatives more delegated legislation powers around implementation, does he think it is important that we have a close link between our own Select Committees and those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure that the right lessons are learned and implemented across the whole United Kingdom, rather than just in any one of its constituent parts?
John Grady
That is a very good point, and I suggest that the Chair of PACAC picks it up with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee. There are learnings from what happens in Scotland that we can apply in the rest of our family of nations, and vice versa—although I would say that there are no learnings that we can draw from the SNP Government on running a health service, which is in a catastrophic state in Scotland. Speaking of the health service, which is suffering in Scotland, it is important—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that we really ought to stay in scope and discuss absent voting in Scotland and Wales, and not necessarily the health service.
John Grady
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just coming to the point that this Bill is so important because voters need to be able to exercise their right to vote to express their views on the management of councils and the Government in Scotland, and the Bill enables people to do so. I apologise for appearing to stray slightly, but it was bringing me to that important point. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have heard enough from me.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on her tenacity in getting this Bill through its parliamentary stages. It is timely that the hon. Lady has today—on the first anniversary of an election that I might care to forget, but that she will definitely care to remember for the rest of her career—made such a great change to our democratic structures through our Bill. If she has achieved this much in the first 12 months, I, for one, look forward to seeing what she will achieve in the next four years. I would like to genuinely congratulate her on behalf of the official Opposition and Members across the House on the way she has conducted herself in getting this legislation on the statute books. Her constituents will also quite rightly be proud.
I also want to take this opportunity to wish Members across the House a happy first anniversary—although, technically, the anniversary is tomorrow. We were all tired in the early hours of that morning; for me, it was 4.36 am, as I remember. I wish a happy anniversary to all new MPs across the House on their first anniversary of serving in this place. I look forward to working with them on a cross-party basis over the next four years, and maybe beyond.
Paul Holmes
I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but I will let him go first.
Paul Holmes
Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for what I know are warm and genuine congratulations. I was about to say that I even congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme a happy anniversary on his election. I am still utterly convinced that while he is the most sartorially elegant MP on the Labour Benches—[Interruption.] The Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has not even bothered to wear a tie, is somehow shouting “Shame”. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I am still convinced that deep down, he is a secret Conservative, and we look forward to seeing his slow conversion to this side of the House over the next four years.
Adam Jogee
Wishful thinking is all I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very proud of my Labour party membership card, thank you very much.
Paul Holmes
Thou doth protest too much—I think we will just keep it to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is the most sartorially elegant member of the Labour parliamentary party, and I would be grateful, after this debate, if he could tell me where he gets his ties.
By the way, I also want to say happy anniversary to those of us who survived the last election, too—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is sitting on the Front Bench next to me.
I welcome the Minister being in her place. The Conservatives completely agree with her remarks on the amendment that was tabled. It is perfectly straightforward, and we support it. In a rare moment of cross-party unity, we completely echo what the Minister has said, and therefore we do not need to say much more on that.
I will just pay tribute to the four Back-Bench contributors for their remarks. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said he is making a habit of beating Conservatives, but let us just see what happens in four years’ time—I will not predict what will happen at the next election. As I said earlier, he is a genuine friend, and I genuinely like his engaging contributions to many debates in this House; they are always backed up by the principled aims he has in any area of policy in this House—long may that continue.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) gave a great speech. She set out the full scope of the Bill clearly and how it will make a tangible change to many people who live in Scotland. I congratulate her on that.
Even though the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is from a rival city down the Solent from me, I thought she made an excellent contribution. She made important points on the changes to the legislation to ensure that veterans cards can be used as official ID for voting. I represent many veterans in my community, particularly naval veterans—as I know the hon. Lady does, with the home of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth North—and I know that that is a vital change that is being made. It was a commitment of the previous Government; I think it is fair to say that parliamentary time ran out, so we were unable to do that, so I am pleased that that the new Government took that forward.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) was right to share his expertise on devolution, and gave fascinating historical context for this Bill. I remember being in the Stag’s Head pub on the University of Southampton’s campus in 2006, when he was chairman of the university’s Labour Society and I was chairman of its Conservative Association. For transparency, I will declare that it was a lot smaller than the Labour Society. I am not sure whether he ever imagined that we would share a Chamber today. As we saw from his speech, he is a fierce defender of democracy, a fierce supporter of devolution, and a passionate defender of his beliefs and principles. I wish him well going forward.
Peter Lamb
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. Given that we are talking about democratic engagement and encouraging greater participation, does he agree that there are few better ways of encouraging people to engage with the system than getting them into student politics at university?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said that he could not think of anything worse, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw something very special in him when we battled together. He was in the year above me, though hon. Members might not think so from looking at him. I absolutely agree that universities can be at the forefront and heart of early democratic engagement, and can shape people’s views and political compass. I am perfectly willing to say in this House that my politics 15, 16 or 17 years ago were very different from my politics today. That is down to the genuinely open nature of debates in this Chamber and, most importantly, on university campuses.
I am feeling a bit left out, because the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regularly intervened on others but has not intervened on me. He gave a staunch defence of the Bill in some particularly pertinent areas, and talked about other areas that are maybe not so pertinent. I will watch him over the next four years. I wonder how many schools in his constituency he has mentioned in his first 12 months in this House.
John Grady
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Having spent a lot of time with him on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, I know that the charming way in which he presents his submissions would enhance people’s trust in politics, including those voting at Calton Parkhead parish church hall. I am obliged.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman never lets me down. I hope he does not say that within earshot of the Leader of the Opposition, but I can promise her on the Floor of the House that she has nothing to worry about from me. Like him, I will carry on engaging in debates in this House. Where we do not agree, we can do so in a nice, polite and respectful way. We are talking about enhancing democracy for the people of Scotland through this legislation; the way that Members have conducted themselves today serves as a lesson on how people should conduct themselves. I am not talking about any specific parties.
The Bill is welcome, and makes the necessary provisions to ensure that where there is divergence, the whole of Great Britain’s shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. It supports the unity of our democratic system while respecting the devolved nations’ identities. The Conservative party will always look to bridge the gaps between the constituent national communities that make our country so vibrant.
In my role on the Opposition Front Bench, I spend much of my time fighting against what I perceive to be the Government’s repeated attempts to strip local people of their agency and voice. I have had disagreements with the hon. Member for Glasgow East on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but this Bill is refreshing. Frankly, it is a relief to be able to support the work of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who has brought forward a Bill that empowers, rather than undermines, our citizens. Specifically, we welcome the provisions that make it easier for people across Scotland and Wales to participate in elections. This Bill honours the principle that democracy should be accessible to all, not a privilege for the few. That is a principle that we on the Conservative Benches will always defend, as I know the Minister does through her role.
Accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections and guarding against fraud or interference is a core responsibility of any Government. Ministers must take decisive and proactive steps, while modernising and reforming our system, to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign.
We do not have to look for long to see instances of electoral interference from foreign state and non-state actors. Indeed, most recently, it was reported that dozens of anonymous pro Scottish independence X accounts allegedly operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have gone silent since Israel launched strikes on Iranian military and cyber targets on 12 June. The accounts, which seemed to use fake Scottish identities to spread anti-UK sentiment, were identified by Clemson University researchers as being part of a suspected foreign influence campaign.
That example is one among many, and it illustrates an important point that we all must take seriously. That is why I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to working closely with the Electoral Commission and others to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK elections and referendums. I urge them to ensure that this is not just rhetoric but reality.
It is right to note that the Bill builds on work by the previous Government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to strengthen the security of our democratic processes, introducing requirements such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhancing transparency in political funding. Those were much-needed reforms, and it was a shame that legislative consent was not given to those measures in 2022. The Bill now mitigates the effect of that decision.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the inclusion of identity verification for postal and proxy vote applications is another necessary measure to close off vulnerabilities in our system. There must not be a mismatch between how people register by post and how they do so digitally. These are technical details, but their impact on the integrity of our electoral process is profound. We must not allow inconsistent standards to become weak spots in our democracy, because we can be sure that our adversaries abroad would use those to divide us and cause chaos in any way they can.
This Bill represents a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system. By aligning absent voting procedures in devolved elections with those across the rest of the United Kingdom, it helps to modernise and safeguard our democratic processes for the future. Crucially, it also empowers voters in Scotland and Wales by making participation in elections simpler and more accessible.
I must reiterate what I said on Second Reading: I urge the Government to abandon their plans to water down voter ID requirements. They have found it within themselves to make U-turns in other areas. Today we are legislating to make voting easier for people while maintaining adequate security, but we cannot also have the Government watering down voter ID requirements, which would reduce security in our voting system.
On that rare note of disharmony during an afternoon of unity, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith again on the constructive and inclusive approach that she has taken. I look forward to seeing this legislation on the statute book. Let us see whether she brings more legislation forward over the next four years to make a real difference in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on all her fantastic work, and on ensuring there is cross-party support for this Bill. I echo the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), made about her ability to make such an important change so quickly; we are celebrating it being a year since the general election.
I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for their excellent speeches, which highlighted the importance of this private Member’s Bill. They also pointed out some of the changes that we have already made; for instance, I am proud to have introduced the veteran ID card while in government. There is also a specific proposal in our manifesto to reduce the voting age, so that 16 and 17-year-olds can vote.
The Government share the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to this Bill, which will give people in Scotland and Wales the same choices for managing their voting arrangements for devolved elections as they already have for reserved elections. Many of us will remember a time when absent voting in the UK was still governed by excessively restrictive criteria; electors had to provide valid reasons, such as illness, travel or occupational constraints, to qualify for a postal vote. Similarly, proxy voting was limited to those with clear impediments to attending the polling station.
This changed in 2001, when postal voting on demand was introduced in Great Britain, allowing electors to freely apply for a postal vote. That change was quickly embraced by the electorate: in the 2001 general election, there was a significant increase in the number of postal votes issued compared with previous elections, and by 2005, the figure had more than doubled. By 2010, over 7 million postal votes were issued across the UK. Now that electors have been given the choice to vote in a way that best suits them and their needs, it has become clear that there is significant demand for flexibility in how people exercise their democratic rights. While it is less commonly used, the option to vote via a proxy has also remained a viable and necessary alternative for many electors across the country.
In 2007, measures were introduced to verify the identity of postal voters. They added a layer of security to the process and ensured that electors could have confidence in the system. These included the requirement for voters to provide personal identifiers, such as their date of birth and signature, when applying for and returning postal ballots. The introduction of the “Register to vote” service in 2014 gave electors the ability to go online and make their application to vote without needing to submit a paper application. That change, much like the changes to absent voting, has proved extremely popular with the electorate; in 2024, over 92% of all applications to register to vote were made using the online service, with less than 8% taking the traditional paper route. The modernisation of our electoral system through the changes I have just laid out has proven popular with electors time and again.
The Bill relates to the online absent vote application service, which, as has been pointed out, went live in October 2023 as a result of the need to modernise the way in which electors apply for their absent votes. Given the enthusiasm that electors have shown for the freedom to decide the method by which they cast their ballot, and the clear preference for using online services to apply to vote, it is no surprise that the new online absent vote application service has also proven popular. Unfortunately, as we have heard, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the new online service to apply for postal and proxy votes only for reserved elections, such as elections to the UK Parliament. The benefits of extending the online absent vote application service to devolved elections for electors in Scotland and Wales are clear. It will allow people in Scotland and Wales the option of applying online for a postal or proxy vote for devolved parliamentary and local elections, or of applying through a traditional paper application.
In Scotland and Wales, voters who wish to apply for a postal or proxy vote in devolved parliamentary or local elections must still complete a paper application form and submit it by post. As we have heard, this Bill seeks to give electors in Scotland and Wales the same choice as others over how they apply for their absent vote for use in Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament, and local elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has said, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru will hold their parliamentary elections in May 2026. It would be hugely beneficial both to voters and to electoral administrators in Scotland and Wales alike if access to the online services is made available in time for those elections. There is a great deal of enthusiasm from the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the benefits, as was made clear to me in my meetings in Cardiff this week with the Scottish Government Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the Bill has been welcomed by those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral sectors. My officials work closely with the electoral administration community, and as such I can say with confidence that the Bill will deliver clear benefits for both electors and administrators, in particular by removing the need for duplicate applications to be made for devolved and reserved absent votes. That means less time for electors spent making applications and less time for administrators spent processing applications. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, including on technical aspects of the Bill’s implementation.
The changes in the Bill represent just one of the ways that this Government intend to encourage electoral engagement and participation. As I have mentioned, we will also lower the voting age, giving 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds the right to shape their future at the ballot box. We will set out plans to further strengthen the integrity of elections and encourage participation in democracy. We are working in partnership with the electoral sector to bring about the changes in this Bill and the many other changes we are seeking to make.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her tireless work on this important Bill. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister for his and his party’s support for the Bill, for which I am glad there has been wider cross-party support. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for taking such strong interest in the Bill and for coming here on a Friday to speak in support of it. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith once again for her work, and I look forward to working with colleagues to ensure that the Bill passes. I hope very much that Members will support the Bill’s measures and ensure that it advances to the other place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the leave of the House, I call Tracy Gilbert to wind up.
Tracy Gilbert
With the leave of the House, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank Members from across the House for their contributions and support today. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for his very kind remarks; it shows how we can work across the House with kindness and mutual support, which I am very grateful for. I thank my team for the work they have done to support me during this first year and for helping me to bring this Bill forward, along with officials from Government Departments. Without their support, I would not have been able to bring the Bill to the House. I look forward to the continued support of hon. Members for the Bill as it passes through its stages.
It is apt to be speaking today, when a year ago today we were all awaiting our fate to see whether we would be making the journey to this place. I put on the record my thanks to my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith for enabling me to secure my place in this House, thereby enabling me to take forward this piece of legislation. It will enhance democracy and encourage participation for all our constituents across the whole of the UK. I look forward to the Bill receiving support to enable it to pass to the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will start with a short summary of the Bill. Which will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. The reason for that is that under international law applicable to space, Governments including the UK are liable for damage to property or death or personal injury caused by space activities. Section 36 passes on that liability to spaceflight operators and requires them to indemnify the Government. Without legal certainty over a cap, much-needed investment in the UK space industry, which is critical for defence and civilian purposes, will be held back, and that investment will go elsewhere. That is the purpose of the Bill: to encourage vital investment in our space sector, of which we should be proud.
I realise that parliamentarians in this place have not always been enthusiastic about space. When the Soviet spacecraft Luna 2 reached the surface of the moon on 13 September 1959, the Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, who went on to be a Speaker of this place, reacted with great enthusiasm. He said:
“I don’t think many people are terribly interested in the Russian rocket”,
despite it being historic. Harold Macmillan, on the other hand, was much more enthusiastic. When Armstrong and Aldrin were waiting in the lunar module, and we had had a man on the moon, Harold Wilson said:
“We must all be filled with a profound sense of wonder and admiration in witnessing this historic event.”
In fact, the UK played an important role in that space mission, and UK industry was involved, too. There was somewhat of a stooshie—a Scots word for a row—about the failure of the British ambassador to attend the launch, and his letter in the National Archives explains why. His explanation basically boils down to the fact that he had been to one previously, and that once you have seen one space launch, you have seen them all. It just goes to show that the importance of the special relationship is nothing new, but it did cause somewhat of a stooshie. Of course, nothing in 1969 was as important as Newcastle United winning the Inter-Cities Fairs cup.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My hon. Friend just talked about the importance of the space sector to so many of us and, indeed, to the whole of the UK. Will he join me in welcoming this Labour UK Government’s investment in the space sector in Scotland?
John Grady
Yes. The UK Government have invested in Orbex, in Forres in the north of Scotland. It remains important to give grants to earlier-stage companies because they cannot get the equity and debt funding that more advanced companies can, so I welcome that important investment.
The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. When we tap in and out of the underground on the way home or when we purchase things, that relies on satellite technology. Space is also a key focus for the national wealth fund, as confirmed by Lord Livermore, who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and John Flint, the chief executive of the national wealth fund, when we discussed the fund at the Treasury Committee this week. Space is an important future business for Britain, and an important economic opportunity.
Another reason why it is important to invest in space is for defence—it is critical to the defence of the United Kingdom. If we have a vibrant space industry in the United Kingdom, that will support the technological innovation we need to defend our country and our allies as we move into a much more difficult foreign policy context.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware of the role that the Starlink system has played in Ukraine in enabling the frontline operations of the Ukrainian army. For a very long time, GPS was the main determinator of whether Trident could arrive at its destination. It strikes me that in some ways the technology, our ability to put things into space and what we are putting up there will be what absolutely determines the nature of warfare in the 21st century; does my hon. Friend agree?
John Grady
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UK Government have committed to investing in defence and in advances in tech defence. As we develop defence, investing in space is utterly critical and central to that. It is a matter of some regret that Scottish companies that invest in military matters are not funded by the Scottish National Investment Bank or Scottish Enterprise, because they have the view that we should not invest in defence, even though it will create jobs and is important for defending the north of Scotland, which is where my mother came from and which is now very important for defence.
I am an MP for Glasgow, which has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. My seat has the fantastic University of Strathclyde. I recently met Professor Malcolm Macdonald from the university, who is the director of the centre for signal and image processing and the applied space technology laboratory. He outlined to me with great enthusiasm and knowledge the amount of innovation in the space sector in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. This is a critical industry that we must invest in and for which we must create the conditions of investment. Around 52,000 people work in the space sector across the UK, so this is a big opportunity.
Let me turn to talk about precisely what the Bill does, albeit with four words: it seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I emphasise that spaceflight activities are heavily regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for safety. There is day-to-day scrutiny of their safety from an expert safety regulator—the CAA is one of the best regulators in the world—so we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the very minimum extent possible by a very strong regulatory regime. One of the reasons why our family of nations has a great advantage in space is that because we are right at the end of Europe, we have a great place to launch, because we do not launch over big urban areas. If we go right up to Shetland, there is nothing for hundreds of miles.
There are treaties under international space law, and the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by UK spaceflight-related operations. Despite the space safety regime, there is a residual risk that things go wrong and the UK Government face claims. The UK Government can make claims against operators, which take place under section 36 of the 2018 Act. That is quite proper. Operators have to assume and bear risk, and the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them—as we are quite rightly adopting a cross-party spirit today, I commend the previous Government on their work on space law—which is why the regime under the 2018 Act makes provisions for space operators to put in place compulsory insurance.
The businesses have to insure themselves and are regulated by a very competent regulator. The question is: what happens if a claim exceeds the amount of insurance that can be put in place on a sensible basis? That is really what we are addressing here. The current legislation does not require the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government to include a cap in the licence; it makes it optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides:
“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee's liability under section 36 in respect of the activities authorised by the licence.”
The critical thing that my Bill will do is quite simply to swap “may” for “must”, and as a consequence the word “any” in section 36 is changed to “the”. That is consistent with long-standing Government policy that the liability should be limited—there is a clear, documented policy that it is limited.
However, the problem with documented policies as opposed to statute—as a recovering lawyer, I go back to my legal career here—is that Government policies are ultimately much easier to change than statutes. We can have a claim for legitimate expectations and a breach of those, but that is a very difficult class of claim to run, and there has not been a huge number of successful cases of that sort in the courts. It is a difficult area of public law.
Business quite properly says, “You could change this policy and expose our existing investments to additional risk.” Business could also fairly go and look elsewhere for investment. Investors will not invest in the same way in the face of a lack of statutory protection, so the critical thing the Bill does is to include a statutory protection. It requires the Government to cap the liability and encourages people to invest, and that puts us on a par with our principal competitor nations for space investment. So, four words to the Bill, with two swapped, but it is absolutely critical for the future of an industry that could be brilliant for the United Kingdom and all our constituents for years to come.
Melanie Ward
Does my hon. Friend agree that the space sector gives our country—and indeed to the world—a sense of possibility and innovation? He talks about the four words in the Bill—Buzz Lightyear provides us with another four words to take inspiration from: “To infinity and beyond!”
John Grady
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she does regularly. The space sector creates enthusiasm for young people. When I met young students at the University of Strathclyde, I could see that it had engendered excitement about the future, and that is a good thing.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I speak on this Bill as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on having such a massive effect on the UK space industry by changing just two words in the Space Industry Act 2018. His Bill is perhaps one of the most sublime Bills relating to the space sector that I have seen. It is truly incredible that we can have such a change to our industry.
We have had a space sector in this country for many years and it has been quite successful. As we have heard, it is currently worth about £19 billion a year and employs about 52,000 people, but the sector’s potential is absolutely enormous. The expectation is that, by 2035, the global space sector will be worth £1.8 trillion, and it is the ambition of this country at some point to get about 10% of that sector. That would be £180 billion a year of economic activity, so it is incredibly important.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about the space sector and all the exciting things we can do beyond the Kármán line in space. Importantly for those Scottish Members present, we will see the most symbolic part of the space sector to the north of Unst in the Shetland islands, hopefully before the year is out: a launch from British soil. That is genuinely very exciting.
Our whole economy can benefit. The hon. Gentleman is helping to open up an opportunity for the City of London, which for a long time has been a financer of innovation, trade and many different things. Importantly, it has been one of the biggest wholesale and specialist insurance markets in the world. By changing two words in the 2018 Act, the hon. Gentleman is not only unleashing spaceflight licensing for the UK but unleashing yet more opportunity at Lloyd’s of London. On top of that, as we see more space businesses coming to locate in the UK because of that opportunity, we will see even more opportunities, such as space companies being listed on the London stock exchange, bond issues and a whole load of corporate finance activities. Beyond that, there will be yet more activity in the legal sector, for example. The Bill is therefore incredibly important. The hon. Gentleman has done something incredibly simple but incredibly important, and all in the space sector are incredibly grateful.
I have a small anecdote about Buzz Lightyear—we heard mention of his catchphrase, “To infinity and beyond!” I met Buzz Aldrin’s son a few years ago and made a joke about “To infinity and beyond” to him, and he turned around to me and said, “The Disney corporation never paid my dad enough for that.”
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill. It will be truly transformational.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for chairing the all-party parliamentary group for space and for his promotion of the sector.
As the MP for Portsmouth North, I strongly support this pivotal Bill, which will unlock further growth in our already thriving regional space cluster. It will ensure that operators take responsibility but, critically, that their liability is limited. As we heard from my hon. Friend, that statutory provision will bring us in line with our competitors.
Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire region are increasingly central to the UK’s space ambitions. Through initiatives such as Space South Central, we are part of the largest regional space cluster in the country, which generates more than £3 billion annually and employs more than 5,600 people. In Portsmouth, our universities, small and medium-sized enterprises and global industry leaders work in close partnership to pioneer satellite applications, mission design and advanced technologies.
The Bill’s provision to offer limited Government indemnity to commercial launch providers is critical. It will lower barriers to entry, de-risk new ventures, attract investment and enable orbital missions from UK soil. That is not just theoretical; it has real implications for Portsmouth’s space sector.
Let me highlight some of the potential beneficiaries in my city. The University of Portsmouth’s Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation is actively designing small satellite missions, from Earth observation CubeSats to lunar radio probes. Its space mission incubator and CosmoCube projects are prime examples of innovation that stands to gain from accelerated launch capabilities. The university also hosts the South Coast Centre of Excellence in Satellite Applications—part of the Satellite Applications Catapult, which supports businesses in satellite development, data-driven services and AI applications. The indemnity will provide confidence to those SMEs entering into new orbit ventures.
In the private sector, global giants such as Airbus Defence and Space operate from Portsmouth’s Hilsea facility. Its multimillion-pound Oberon reconnaissance satellite contract with the Ministry of Defence sustains 1,000 local jobs—roles that will be bolstered by a more robust UK space launch ecosystem. It also provides fantastic apprenticeship opportunities for young people.
Hampshire-based firms such as QinetiQ, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Airbus are deeply integrated into space innovation and, locally, into our communities. With the Bill’s indemnity framework, these organisations—universities and companies alike—will gain access to faster mission approvals and greater capacity to adopt emerging UK launch providers, with results including new jobs, expanded contracts, strengthened regional growth and a win for my city.
Let us consider the Bill’s impact. More research-led satellites such as CosmoCube could be developed and launched from Cornwall or Scotland, but Portsmouth businesses will be able to contribute all the way from design to orbit. Portsmouth’s science, technology, engineering and maths pipeline, from UTC Portsmouth through to the university’s Mission Space programme, will benefit enormously from real, home-grown launch activity. That will inspire students, help retain talent and create new high-tech career paths. Charities and public services will also benefit. Space-enabled monitoring applications powered by data from low-cost satellites could support coastal management, environmental protection and emergency response in my maritime city.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the charity that I am a trustee of, STEMunity, which had a fantastic reception this week and, by working with a number of other charities and public and private sector companies, has introduced young people to the world of space.
This is not just a technical fix of four words; it is a strategic piece of legislation that can help cement Portsmouth’s place in the UK space age—and, indeed, the UK in the world—by reducing risk for our inventors.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing forward this important Bill. It is fantastic to see space made in today’s programme to debate it. Many of the contributions have been out of this world. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is a timely and necessary measure to sharpen the UK’s competitive edge in what is undoubtedly one of the most strategically important domains of our time. Having almost completed my first year on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand that our security relies not only on land, sea and air, but increasingly on the space domain and our assets in orbit. Satellite communications, Earth observation and precise navigation form the backbone of military operations, but also of our civil economy—I will come back to that later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) pointed out in his intervention, any disruption up there has immediate and profound consequences to operations down here. We know at first hand that China and other nations are taking leaps and bounds in its drive to dominate the space domain, so anything we can do to strengthen the UK space economy is critical.
Before coming to this House, I was very fortunate that my team supported clients such as Defence Equipment & Support in negotiations around the space domain, in particular providing better commercial and buying support, which is critical, so I have seen at first hand the complexity of this emerging market, and how the public sector needs to keep up to date and respond to the demands and the asks of the private sector, and drive growth.
Just down the road from me in Harwell, a project completed by my former firm in 2023, the National Satellite Test Facility, received £120 million of new investment by the public sector through the Science and Facilities Technology Council. That shows that when we unlock investment, it is not just about the assets that end up in space, but about the big, chunky, complex engineering construction opportunities that are opened up in places such as the OxCam corridor, where my constituency sits. Through that work, I have seen how the private sector is poised and hungry to drive forward the next wave of space innovation. What is holding us back, generally, is not technology, talent, innovation or the drive for growth, but regulatory uncertainty. Despite the fact that the Bill relates to only four words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, it will make a big difference.
The Space Industry Act 2018 laid the groundwork for the modern commercial sector we have in space. I commend the previous Government, as we are debating in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation across the House, for their work on that and for the space industrial strategy, which was published later. I can see echoes of that now in the industrial strategy, and I know that when the defence industrial strategy comes out later in the year, space will be front and centre of that as well. It is positive that we can build on some of the good work done by the Conservatives.
Without knowing what financial exposure firms might face if an accident or an incident occurs, companies hesitate to invest, insurers demand eye-watering premiums, and ultimately, we lose manufacturing contracts to other jurisdictions. The simple but powerful adjustment made by the Bill changes the law so that the indemnity limit for each operator licence is not optional, but mandatory. Each licence must spell out the licensee’s maximum liabilities. This is an essential risk management mechanism and it means that companies know exactly what they are signing up for. It also allows them to secure insurance in a predictable way. In the construction sector, we had a lot of unpredictable insurance post-Grenfell and particularly post-industrial shock, so I know how, for a commercial business, insecure insurance and unpredictability of insurance is important.
The Government’s new industrial strategy is really positive for the space sector. In my constituency, the Bill will stimulate jobs and growth. It specifically recognises that the Government will be investing in research and development for the space industry through the Cambridge Growth Company, which will drive new opportunities for my constituents.
When we consider this issue, we must also remember the wider stakes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech on space. I must declare that I prefer to have my feet firmly on planet Earth, but none the less I am enjoying his contribution. I have been advised that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Where does my hon. Friend think those on the second Opposition Bench are from?
Mike Reader
I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now.
Mike Reader
Where they are from, I do not know, but I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now. I will keep the collegiate relationship we have here today, but I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
I was talking about international impacts. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international trade and investment, I think the Bill is a very positive step forward to help drive investment. As we see countries such as the US, Luxembourg, Australia and Japan change their regulatory regimes, we need to keep that front and centre.
I did say I would briefly mention the civil economy, as we have a Minister from the Department here today. Regulatory certainty matters. I see that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill is coming forward, but I note that the fuel strategy is also very important. One in five of my constituents work in logistics, so it is critical that we see certainty in all sectors of the Department for Transport.
I will conclude by saying this. Space is no longer the preserve of big Government agencies alone. We see a lot of innovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said in relation to her constituency, there is fierce commercial competition and a lot of opportunity. The Bill will ensure that, whether we are exploring near space, planets, exoplanets, exomoons or even going out further into space, we support the British economy and get the space industry growing.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on making many fine contributions today and still managing to find time to pass his own Bill.
This is an area of personal interest to me. I made the terrible choice 20 years ago to go into politics, but most of my family are scientists. My grandfather was Professor Sir Robert Boyd, who is often described as the father of British space science. My dad still works in the sector. The pace at which the industry is progressing is quite remarkable. When SpaceX and Virgin Galactic first came out, I thought to myself, “How on earth are these companies going to make any money at all?” But they could certainly see the future in all of this. As has been set out, the opportunities presented by space are vast, and legislation needs to keep pace.
Ultimately, it is a question of risk. Risk will always be part of the process, as it is in every part of life. It is perfectly possible to manage it in a way that makes it viable to undertake various activities. The Bill, in its four words, sets out to resolve that, addressing liability and insurance issues to enable the viability of the UK’s space industry, which surely will be seen as a vital area of economic growth in times to follow, and of national security, as has been discussed.
No doubt, the discussion of risks may arouse concern from the general public, but for the average person, the risks are vanishingly low. Most objects sent up into space are far too small to survive re-entry. Frankly, huge satellites pose a far greater risk to each other now, through what is known as Kessler syndrome, where one knocks into another and that sets off a cascade that destroys all the satellites in lower orbit, making them completely unusable. The risk of an individual being hit by space debris is less than one in a trillion. Rockets can blow up—they are very similar to missiles—but they tend to be limited to a small range of places, which consistently are remote, and follow a path unlikely to pose a risk to people’s property.
The industry has to have an approach to risk, but from an individual perspective, we should not in any way be worried. As has been highlighted, the Civil Aviation Authority, which happens to be based in my constituency, plays a significant role in that. It does fine work in this area, in addition to general aviation. The Bill manages these risks well. It is a vital part of how to deliver an economy of the future for the UK, and I am delighted to support it.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak again on the Bill. It is a short Bill—it replaces just two words—but one with substantial implications. The meat of the Bill, if I can call it that, is to replace “may” with “must”.
I will briefly refer to some of the excellent contributions. I am relieved to have heard many fewer revolting puns than in previous debates on this subject; nevertheless, a couple slipped through. I start with the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who set out the commercial need for the change to the Act. He made the sensible point that Government policy is easier to change than statute. If we were not sure of that before this week, one should just ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that it is easier to change policy than it is to change legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, which makes him eminently well-qualified to speak in this debate. I was pondering my own qualifications, and the best I could come up with was that I played rugby for a team called the Space Cadets when I was at university. That is about as close as I could get to the space industry. My hon. Friend rightly made the case for a role for the City of London. He mentioned developing opportunities for Lloyds of London, listings, bond issuance and subsequent legal support. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the role of Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire space cluster. She said that it was just four words that needed to be changed—in that sentence, she doubled the size of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reflected on space developments in the context of defence, and on commercial opportunities being held back because of regulatory uncertainty. He was right to highlight that regulatory certainty matters. Finally, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said he was the grandson of the father of British space science, which presumably makes him the son of British space science.
We cannot complain about inadequate consideration of the Bill. The first attempt to enact the change was introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, and we had a Second Reading of a very similarly worded Bill on 23 February 2024. Unfortunately, that Bill was lost in the parliamentary wash-up session, as a result of the general election being called later that year. I am pleased that the incoming Government have, through their inspirational Back Benchers, been able to introduce a private Member’s Bill in very similar terms.
Second Reading was quite a long time ago—back on 7 March this year—but since then, the Bill has been through Committee and undergone robust line-by-line consideration. I am pleased to report to the House that the word “must” has not been altered in Committee. I wonder whether “definitely should” or “really ought” was posited by Members, but, in the end, we have the same wording as on Second Reading. We now come to the remaining stages, no doubt to an enormous sigh of relief from the industry, and perhaps a little bit of frustration about why it has taken so long to change just two words in an Act that received Royal Assent back in 2018.
As a personal observation, I question whether the private Member’s Bill route is appropriate for legislation that has such significant commercial impact. The industry has been waiting. We have heard from speaker after speaker about the commercial importance of changing “may” to “must”, and yet it has taken seven years from identifying the original problem to effecting a solution. We need to really think about that, because this Bill is important and delay has had a cost.
The UK space industry generates £18.9 billion for our economy. There are at least 1,800 businesses involved in it, some 52,000 jobs are directly employed by the space industry and, with the supply chain, that number increases to 130,000. No doubt, those figures are out of date as it is a growing industry. We have strong demand for UK commercial spaceflight that led to the original regulatory benefit, arising out of our Brexit freedoms, to have a dynamic regulatory environment. It has given us a genuine economic commercial advantage over our European friends and neighbours, because we have been able to have a more dynamic approach to regulation.
However, that has been put at risk because of the difficulties in calculating potential liabilities. Others have already gone through the legal niceties of the Space Industry Act 2018, so I do not propose to go through those line by line as I would normally. Suffice it to say, the legal duty of a space operator is to provide insurance for their operations, and that is required under the Act. That brings a corollary obligation to make a calculation to potential exposure. If someone is making an actuarial calculation of the risk to which a client is exposing an insurer, they need to undertake a calculation of the scale—the quantum—of that risk.
This is where the regulatory uncertainty has played its part. Although it has been repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere that it is, and remains, Government policy to have an indemnity beyond a certain level of liability, the uncertainty is that the legislation does not require the Government to do that. Section 12(2) gives the Civil Aviation Authority—the regulatory authority in this case—power to set an upper limit to provide clarity. This Bill turns that power into an obligation, which is quite right.
We have had a fun debate and I am very pleased that the legislation is nearing the end of its legislative journey, but we collectively need to stop and think. This is an uncontroversial change, with cross-party support, supporting a growth industry, and yet it has taken five months to progress from Second Reading to the remaining stages. That is simply not good enough. We collectively need to think of a way in which we can get this kind of legislation accelerated.
Launches into space are never straightforward, and this Bill is no exception. It had an initial flare-out on its launchpad before the last general election, and since then it has had an excruciatingly slow reconstruction and review. But it is finally ready for launch, and I wish it well. I hope it releases many further launches across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for promoting this short but important Bill. I wanted to get further into Newcastle United’s Inter-Cities Fairs cup win in 1969, but I do not think today is the day.
I thank all who have contributed to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for his chairmanship of the APPG for space. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), for his support as well. He mentioned puns—I attempted a pun in the House the other day, and Mr Speaker reminded me to stick to the day job. I will not try to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South.
This industry is so important, and it will be going forward. It has already been said that it contributes £19 billion to the UK economy, and it is already employing 52,000 people right across our land. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s full support. We have economic growth at the heart of our agenda, and we are taking steps to support major infrastructure and to reduce bureaucratic red tape in regulatory frameworks to better support innovation and growth in the UK.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Minister talks about economic growth. I recently met a Mongolian lady working at the Satellite Applications Catapult, which exists to grow the UK space sector. We have heard about Buzz Aldrin and Buzz Lightyear—I am afraid I have a pun coming. With that in mind, will the Minister set out in further detail, perhaps at the Dispatch Box now, how he foresees the Bill giving the space sector the rocket boosters it needs to go to infinity and beyond?
Mike Kane
Today is 4 July and there will be fireworks across the pond, but we want rocket boosters under our space industry. Most of Europe is landlocked—or I should say space-locked—which provides the UK with a unique opportunity to be a launchpad for satellites produced all around Europe. That is the market that we are going for.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes where operator liability is limited, or that provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability, such as the US or France. For those reasons, we are pleased to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.
John Grady
I will keep my remarks short. I thank all Members for their support today, on Second Reading and in Committee. I also thank the Department for Transport civil servants who assisted me. The Clerk of Private Members’ Bills puts in a lot of work to help us all with our Private Members’ Bills, and I give thanks to them as well.
This Bill will now go to another place, where Baroness Anelay of St Johns has kindly agreed to take it on, and I thank her for so doing. I should also thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who has been nothing but enthusiastic about this Bill from the off. It is good to hear enthusiasm, and speaking as a new Member—or a year-old Member—it is always very helpful to have advice from Members from across the Chamber.
Of course, I thank my team for their help with the Bill. I thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I also thank the voters and residents of Glasgow East, because it is a privilege to be here representing them. I love every minute of my time representing my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), is about cutting red tape and unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy for the hospitality industry and local authorities when they simply want to open earlier or stay open later on occasions of special importance.
The Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 to allow licensing extensions to be made more quickly and simply. Furthermore, it will make it possible to extend licensing hours for noteworthy events at short notice, even when Parliament is not sitting. Such decisions will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and extensions will be used as and when is deemed appropriate by the Government, with the criteria for making such an extension remaining unchanged, and the power resting with the Home Secretary.
The Bill will make a very simple alteration to the Licensing Act 2003, so that the negative procedure is used and the requirement for debate is removed, though Members can still pray against an extension if they wish. That will allow extensions to licensing hours to be processed without using up valuable parliamentary time—something I am certain you would approve of, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is extremely welcome that there has been broad support and consensus across the House for this measure. Whether that says something about parliamentarians and pints, I could not possibly say.
The negative procedure also has the benefit of allowing licensing extensions to be made in the rare event that they are needed during parliamentary recess or at short notice. Following the affirmative procedure is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice, as we have seen in the past—for example, at the time of the women’s world cup in 2023.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
This summer, the women’s club world cup comes to Northampton. If it was in another country, this legislation would be critical, because I am sure that many want to see the England women’s rugby team play, as they will do at Franklin’s Gardens. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we see more interest in sports, particularly women’s sports, it is critical that the Government have the ability to change licensing hours without the affirmative procedure?
Matt Turmaine
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is vital legislation. It is wholly appropriate to make this alteration in order to permit swift changes to licensing hours as necessary.
This move will ensure that there will be no such limitations in the future, and that any hospitality venue will have the option of taking advantage of an extension issued by the Home Secretary. Special occasions such as world cups, European championships and royal weddings live long in all our memories, even if we are enjoying the hospitality so enabled. It is only right that our pubs and hospitality venues are given the opportunity to be a part of the experience on those occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I hope that the Bill will pass today, and will do exactly what it says on the tin, especially on this day of celebration, one year on from the general election.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, I am proud to speak in support of the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill, which is a sensible and necessary reform to support our struggling hospitality sector and, as we have heard, allow communities to come together during moments of national significance. The Bill gives the Government the power to extend licensing hours across the country for key events, such as royal celebrations, national sporting victories and commemorative days, without the need for venues to go through costly and time-consuming individual applications.
For Portsmouth North, this is more than just a technical measure—it is a lifeline. Across areas such as North End, Drayton, Cosham and Hilsea, we have seen much-loved venues close their doors in recent years, yet some still stand strong at the heart of our communities. Pubs such as the Harvest Home in Copnor, the George in Cosham, the Drayton Tavern in Drayton and the Cross Keys in Paulsgrove, where my mum and dad met, have fought to keep going, despite increased pressures from rising costs, staff shortages and regulatory burdens. For many of these venues, the opportunity to stay open later during special events without additional red tape could mean the difference between a profitable night and another loss.
I want to highlight the role of Casemates Studios in Hilsea. Although primarily a creative space, it supports a range of community events, music gigs and social gatherings. More flexible licensing arrangements will allow places like Casemates to better host local talent and public events tied to national occasions, without the financial or bureaucratic strain that often puts them off even trying. This Bill supports exactly that kind of local, community-led vibrancy. Having spoken with business owners across my constituency, I know how hard they have worked to stay afloat. The Licensing Hours Extensions Bill removes an unnecessary hurdle. It simplifies the process, reduces costs, and gives our hospitality businesses a fair shot at success when it matters most—on those big nights when our country is celebrating.
Let me be clear: this is not about handing out licences indiscriminately. The Bill rightly ensures that local authorities and the police are consulted before any national extension is granted, meaning that residents will still be protected from antisocial behaviour and decisions will reflect the needs of the whole community.
Portsmouth North’s pubs and venues are not just businesses—they are places where people gather, celebrate, mark milestones and find connections. This Bill gives them a boost at a time when many are struggling to keep the lights on. I am pleased to support the Bill, and urge colleagues across the House to do the same for the sake of our local economies, our community spirit and the future of our British pub. As our Lionesses begin their Euros campaign, I wish them our very best.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, alongside the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), and I am pleased to confirm that the Conservative party supports the measure. It is legislation that the previous Conservative Government supported, and we welcome its return to the House. The Bill changes section 197 of the Licensing Act 2003, moving licensing hours orders from the affirmative to the negative procedure. As we have heard, this will save precious parliamentary time while maintaining full democratic accountability through the prayer procedure, which allows Members to object within 40 days.
The hospitality sector is vital to local economies throughout the United Kingdom. From rural pubs to city centre hotels, these businesses need the flexibility to serve their communities during national celebrations. When His Majesty the King was crowned in 2023, establishments across the country wanted to mark that historic occasion. The current process makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond to such moments of national significance. Since 2003, this power has been used sparingly for national events; every single order has had to pass through Parliament, and has done so unopposed. Public consultation also shows strong support, with 77% backing the coronation extensions to licences in 2023.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
When this Bill had its Second Reading, I put it to the Minister who was responding then, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), that this was a rather puny measure, and that there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area, and for getting Parliament and the Government out of the hospitality sector’s hair in relation to licensing hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is far too limited a measure?
Harriet Cross
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course, we should all strive for deregulation, and would like more of it all the time. That is probably a bit too much to take on within the very small confines of this private Member’s Bill, but it is certainly something we should strive for, in order to help businesses across the country, and definitely something I would look at.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will she also include within her inquiries, and her thoughts about ambition, some more control over the negative procedure? The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), who introduced the Bill today, asserted that anybody who was against an order passed under the negative procedure would be able to pray against it, but the opportunity to ensure that a prayer results in a debate is almost non-existent. That is a theoretical, rather than practical, constraint. One of the issues I have been trying to raise is—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Sir Christopher is a parliamentarian with enough experience to know that that is a very, very long intervention. He has been here from the start; he could have chosen to contribute in the debate.
Harriet Cross
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. This is clearly an area that he is very passionate about. If these proposals progress, I am sure that he will be able to feed into them well.
We have been hearing about the affirmative procedure versus the negative procedure. The affirmative procedure has proven particularly cumbersome when unexpected events arise. When our Lionesses reached the world cup final with just four days’ notice, as we have heard, the parliamentary process nearly prevented communities from coming together to celebrate. Even my communities in Scotland would have had the opportunity to do so, if they had been in the same situation. Moving to the negative procedure would allow the Government to respond swiftly to such moments, while maintaining parliamentary oversight.
This change does not weaken democratic oversight at all; it simply makes the process more efficient. The Secretary of State must still consult appropriately under section 172, and public consultation will continue. As we have heard, any Member of either House retains the right to table a prayer motion for the annulment of the order, and judicial review remains available.
The benefits are clear. Parliamentary time spent on uncontested orders can be reallocated to generally contentious matters. By making small, sensible changes like this, we free up valuable time to debate critical issues facing our country, such as securing our energy supply, supporting rural and coastal communities, tackling neighbourhood crime and holding this Government to account.
The Conservative party is and always will be the party of business. We understand that the ability to open for longer during national celebrations can provide a significant and welcome boost of energy and income to our pubs, bars, restaurants and high streets. This Bill facilitates that in a more efficient manner. We support the Bill because it is a common-sense, practical measure that continues to champion the work we did in government, and because it will help businesses and communities across all our constituencies.
In conclusion, as this is a thoroughly logical piece of legislation, which removes unnecessary procedural steps and allows the House to better focus on its primary responsibilities, we support it and commend it to the House.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I rise to speak only because I was not able to complete my intervention; as you rightly said, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was getting very long.
The point I want to make in my short contribution to this debate is that it is because of the lack of flexibility in the negative procedure that we find ourselves having to discuss the matter on Third Reading today. If the House had the ability to amend statutory instruments, and had a guarantee, more or less, that if there was an objection to an order made under the negative procedure, it could be the subject of debate, there would be less concern about orders being subject to the negative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure.
This Bill has been dragged through this House at great length. I do not quite understand the explanation for that. Under the Bill, in the narrow context of a sporting event taking place that resulted in the need for a celebration that there had not been notice of at a time when the House was sitting—according to the Bill’s sponsors, it would be relevant only in such circumstances—the Government could allow a licensing extension.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As we have not yet heard from the Minister, I am not prepared to take a closure motion at this time.
Sir Christopher Chope
In the light of the number of people who voted at 9.35 am, I think it is highly unlikely that any closure motion could be carried, because it would need 100 Members to support it. I have been speaking for only two or three minutes. I know the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) is keen to get on and discuss his Bill, which I know the Government wish to talk out—I am a little bit perplexed about that.
The negative resolution procedure would be necessary only in an emergency. I was quite tempted to extend my remarks, because the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) tried to link the contents of the Bill with today’s first anniversary of the election of what I think is undeniably the worst Government this country has ever experienced. Would we really have wanted to celebrate that in the pubs? Last night, I was commiserating with a group of Conservatives in a London constituency about what had happened over the last year, and explaining to them that they should take courage from the fact that at least we are 20% of the way through this ghastly Government.
Matt Turmaine
My remarks were entirely oriented around the suggestion that those wishing to celebrate would be able to do so. No compulsion to do so was intended.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am so relieved to hear that. As a believer in freedom and choice, I think people should have the chance to go to the pub either to celebrate or to commiserate. I share the desire of the hon. Gentleman and many others in this House to promote the hospitality industry. There seems to be some evidence that a lot more young people are coming back to drink and celebrate in pubs, and long may that continue. In my constituency, as in many others, far too many good pubs and other hospitality venues have closed down, not least because of the Government’s imposition of extra employers’ national insurance and increases in the national minimum wage.
Although the Government will probably take credit for allowing this Bill—this very modest measure—to go through, it needs to be put in perspective. At the same time, they have been the author of a whole lot of measures that have been very bad news for the hospitality industry across the country, and in Christchurch in particular.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) and to others who spoke in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Watford for speaking on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), who introduced the Bill, and I am grateful to be speaking on behalf of the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson).
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, there has been a high degree of consensus on the measures it contains, and I am pleased to say that the Government fully support it. I recognise the depth of experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham brings to it, with his 25-plus years in the hospitality sector. Rightly, the Bill supports the sector, which is responsible for around 2.6 million jobs in our country and is an important part of our local and national economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford explained, section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 makes provision for the Secretary of State to make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales on an occasion of exceptional international, national or local significance. In practice, the Home Secretary determines whether an occasion meets the criteria on a case-by-case basis, and any orders that are brought forward must specify the dates and times of the relaxations. Such orders benefit businesses, which can stay open for longer; communities, which can come together to celebrate important events; and licensing authorities, which do not have to process a large number of individual licence extensions. Of course, it is still for individual businesses to decide whether they wish to take advantage of any extension, but if businesses do wish to stay open, a blanket licensing extension means that individual businesses do not have to give a temporary event notice to their local authority, saving them time as well as the associated fee.
The Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 so that relaxation orders can be made via the negative resolution procedure, rather than the current affirmative procedure. In the past, we have relaxed licensing hours for high-profile royal events, such as Her late Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee and the coronation of His Majesty the King; other events of significant national importance, such as the recent celebrations on the 80th anniversary of VE Day; and major sporting events, including the finals of the men’s European championship football tournaments in 2020 and 2024, and the women’s European championship this summer.
Let me summarise the benefits of changing the procedure. First, by removing the need for businesses to submit individual temporary event notices and, subsequently, for local authorities to work tirelessly in processing them, we will reduce the burden placed on those organisations. Hospitality venues will also have one fewer administrative task to process as they prepare for events.
Secondly, as I have previously mentioned, a more practical reason for making this change is that, as well as being used for royal occasions—for which there is plenty of notice—licensing extensions can be used when one of our national football teams makes it to the final of a tournament. Given the nature of how these competitions play out, there is very little time between the team qualifying for a key match and the match taking place.
In the summer of 2021, the England men’s team made it to the final of the delayed Euro 2020 tournament; thankfully, with the help of colleagues of different parties, we were able to swiftly put an order in place in the three days between the semi-final and the final. In the summer of 2023, however, the England women’s team reached the final of the World cup, which took place when Parliament was in recess. As such, it was not possible to extend licensing hours. Changing the process to the negative procedure will mean that an order can be made when Parliament is in recess, so that we can avoid such a situation arising again. History has shown that there is clearly cross-party support for this measure, which is important to colleagues on both sides of the House.
Having outlined the benefits of being able to make orders swiftly, I will briefly make some remarks about how the Government will consider what needs to be in place when using the powers. We are clear that the Government must continue to plan ahead so that, wherever possible, licensing hours extension orders can be made in time for prior public consultation. It is also important to make it clear that the police have generally been supportive of extensions for royal events, and that no noticeable issues have been attributed to extended drinking hours. Indeed, many people might like to drink non-alcoholic beverages, which are available in almost all pubs and restaurants across the country.
The Government recognise the importance of providing the police with ample time to put in place any additional policing measures that may be necessary to prevent an increase in crime or disorder in our communities, and we make sure that their views on these matters are heard in advance. To that end, the Government remain firmly committed to continuing to plan in advance wherever possible.
The power in section 172 of the Licensing Act has been used sparingly, and rightly so. As the statutory guidance that accompanies the Licensing Act sets out, it should normally be possible for those applying for premises licences to anticipate special occasions. The change will apply to England and Wales only. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and others who have spoken in support of this important new measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Company Directors (Duties) Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Under current UK law, company directors have one overriding duty: to maximise shareholder interest. This narrow, outdated legal framework of shareholder primacy has created a culture in which short-term financial performance overrides long-term sustainability. The Bill will amend section 172 of the Companies Act to change the duty of company directors by requiring them to balance the needs of shareholders with those of employees and the environment, thereby building better and more sustainable businesses. The Institute of Directors backs this change, which will empower directors to do the right thing for their business. It will drive the sustainable growth needed to turbocharge our economy and help to realise the Government’s ambitions for growth.
The Bill gives directors the legal clarity and freedom to make better, long-term decisions, moving away from the short-term drive of a quarter’s profits. Businesses focused on their stakeholders, not solely on shareholder returns, consistently outperform their counterparts. Last year, UK B corps increased their turnover by 23%, compared with the national average of 17%, and they saw a 9.6% increase in employee headcount, compared with a national decrease of 0.5%. Moreover, research conducted by Demos on behalf of the Better Business Act highlighted that a purpose-led economy would boost UK GDP by £149 billion.
It is clear that embracing stakeholder primacy improves financial performance. The law should encourage this, not obstruct it. It is time to change the law to follow the example of the thousands of businesses and organisations that have seen that better business works well. With this change, we can help to build better businesses and a better Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on introducing the Bill and on squeezing in his remarks under the wire. He made some important observations. Clearly, we do not have the time we would like to explore the provisions in more detail, but I understand that I will be engaging with him—
Justin Madders
I may have anticipated the hon. Member’s intervention; I will be engaging with him shortly on the Bill’s provisions. It is not a Bill that the Government will be able to support, but I do want to have further conversations with him about it. It is important that we recognise directors’ duties for what they are: a cornerstone of UK company law. They help to ensure that companies are run responsibly and, importantly, that directors act with integrity at all times.
We are really talking about section 172 of the Companies Act 2006, which the Bill seeks to amend. That is a key part of the directors’ duties framework, which was developed in the light of the major company law review commissioned by the previous Labour Government. I want to be clear that section 172 as it stands already places a legal duty on directors to have regard in their decision making to the interests of employees and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment. It also requires directors to consider a range of other factors, including the impact of any decision on the long-term success of the company.
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 5 December.
Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September.
Women’s State Pension Age (Ombudsman Report and Compensation Scheme) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September.
Theft of Tools of Trade (Sentencing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October.
Quantitative Easing (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Rivers, Streams and Lakes (Protected Status) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September.
Support for Infants and Parents etc (Information) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Domestic Building Works (Consumer Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September.
Animal Shelters (Licensing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Health Insurance (Exemption from Insurance Premium Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2026.
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026.
Green Spaces Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (7 March), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September.
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Public Electric Vehicle Charging Points) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2026.
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January 2026.
Meat (Information About Method of Killing) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February 2026.
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February 2026.
Exemption from Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 February 2026.
Caravan Site Licensing (Exemptions of Motor Homes) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2026.
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2026.
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March 2026.
Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March 2026.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March 2026.
Domestic Energy (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April 2026.
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April 2026.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2026.
Anonymity of Suspects Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026.
Children’s Clothing (Value Added Tax) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2026.
Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 30 January 2026.
British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 February 2026.
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February 2026.
Vaccine Damage Payments Act (Review) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 February 2026.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February 2026.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2026.
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March 2026.
Arm’s-Length Bodies (Accountability to Parliament) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 March 2026.
Bailiffs (Warrants of Possession) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March 2026.
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April 2026.
Pets (Microchips) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
Immigration and Visas Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July.
British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Services for Adults with Learning Difficulties: Hillingdon
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I rise to discuss services for adults with learning difficulties and disabilities in Hillingdon. Approximately 1.3 million people in England have a learning disability. If we include those with learning difficulties, that figure is even higher. Yet too often our services, education system, NHS, workplaces and society as a whole are not inclusive of their needs, and they are often seen as an afterthought.
I was motivated to bring forward this Adjournment debate having recently had the privilege of meeting many adults with learning disabilities and difficulties and their families in the borough of Hillingdon. They expressed to me that, again, they feel like an afterthought, as they were appalled by the council’s recent decision to close another vital service for adults; many other services have been closed, moved or cut in recent years.
Before turning to the specific important services that have been lost or are under threat, it is important to note that, of course, many good organisations are working hard in challenging circumstances to provide support. In the NHS, the Hillingdon community team for people with learning disabilities provides specialist support for adults with learning disabilities in the community and across primary and secondary care. Those services, however, are largely around diagnosis and access to medical support—just one aspect of an adult’s needs.
DASH, a voluntary sector group, offers a range of sporting and recreational activities for people with a disability, all focused on encouraging people to socialise, but it too has struggled with decreasing funding in recent years. Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support provides an autism hub, advice and social activities for adults in the London borough of Hillingdon, but the slashing of its budget in 2023 led to the closure of the popular tea rooms—a café open to the public that offered training and work support to adults with autism. Unfortunately, that was a sign of even more damaging cuts to come. Following those proposals, an e-petition signed by 3,330 people called on the council not to withdraw the funding for the tea rooms. Despite that, the council pressed ahead, claiming that 20 people benefiting from training and support was not good value for money—a disappointing sign of things to come, with a council knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
More broadly in the area of education, the Park View centre, part of the Orchard Hill college group near Uxbridge, has a range of on-site vocational opportunities. The college does excellent work in challenging facilities that were not purpose-built. I recently had the privilege of meeting a number of their learners and staff, and they showed me at first hand how much they have to offer our community and workplaces. As well as insisting I attend their next disco, their overwhelming message was that they love their job coach Holly, but unfortunately, there was only one Holly in the whole of the college. They wanted more work coaches, placements, internships and job coach support. Yes, learning is vital, but they wanted it to lead somewhere in adult life. They wanted real workplace experience and, ideally, a full-time or part-time role.
The Government’s commitment to invest more than £1 billion into workplace support for those with disabilities is a welcome step forward. I hope that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions will work together to ensure that this investment is also targeted to help adults with learning difficulties get the support they desperately need.
Data suggests that the employment gap for people with a learning disability is still far too wide. Of the people accessing long-term social care, only 5% of those with a learning disability are in paid work, which is a shame on our society. Charities have previously called on the Government to set a new ambitious target for reducing the disability employment gap with strategic actions behind it. A previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in March 2023 that he would set a new disability employment goal, but progress has been slow, and I hope the two Departments can work together to progress that. Such a gap is why supporting work placements, centres for training and volunteering is vital.
Following the closure of the Hillingdon tea rooms, another such facility is now under threat. There is a strong community-led campaign to save the Rural Activities Garden Centre, which provides employment opportunities, skills, lifelong relationships and a connection to our community for adults with learning difficulties across west London. Conservative-led Hillingdon council took the decision just last week to slash that vital service.
I have been shocked and saddened to see how the voices of adults with learning difficulties and their families have been silenced in this discussion, not even being allowed to speak or question the decision at the civic centre. We are now in this Chamber, and we can ensure that their voices and stories are heard; a number of them are in the Gallery with their families.
George is 28. He was separated from his parents at birth due to their inability to care for him at that time. He has spent years unable to eat without a feeding tube and has battled self-harm throughout his life. After decades of struggle for specialist support, four years ago George found something precious: a community at the Rural Activities Garden Centre, where he feels valued and understood. Since the announcement, and as a result of the fear that that vital support system may be stripped away, George’s challenges have again become overwhelming.
Oliver has been attending the RAGC for 10 years and has complex health needs. He is partially sighted and has severe learning difficulties and chronic kidney disease. More recently, he has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Oliver’s battle with mental health impacted on his ability to do day-to-day tasks and the usual activities that brought him joy, but one comfort remained: the RAGC.
There is also Doug, who I have had the pleasure to meet. He is an adult with learning disabilities that impact on his ability to read, write and count. Where the private sector was unable to provide support to Doug with his additional needs, the RAGC saw past what he could not do and nurtured what he could. It watched him transform from a shy young man into a confident 32-year-old with purpose. After the closure meeting, Doug asked a simple but heartbreaking question: “Where do the staff go? What happens to me and my mates?”
I was also told of Georgia’s story. Before joining RAGC, she struggled with anxiety and undiagnosed autism, leaving her imprisoned in her own home. The garden centre helped her to develop skills and build confidence, and she even went on to compete in a wreath-making competition. It was the service now under threat that transformed her from someone who could not leave the house to someone who could confidently serve customers—what a transformation. She fears the closure will reignite those same issues that she has worked so hard to manage.
The difficulties of day-to-day life are often felt more acutely by adults with learning difficulties. It is the sanctuary that places such as the RAGC provide that makes it imperative we continue to fight for their survival. The Rural Activities Garden Centre makes employment opportunities, personal development and skills curation accessible for those who are often isolated. I have met so many people from right across the community who have volunteered there, gained skills and even moved into permanent jobs as a result. Families feel that their loved ones are cared for, safe and nurtured in this space, and it has given carers and families their own ability to have respite and time to care for themselves.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He will know that the garden centre also provides an essential service to my constituents. I have visited the place for either 20 or 30 years—I am not clear—and it was commended by the former Conservative leader of Hillingdon council, who called it a jewel in the crown. That is why it has come as such a shock that this Conservative administration is now willing to close it with such brutality. Does the hon. Member agree that the council should, even at this late stage, think again and consult properly—including all those volunteers and parents as well as the people who use the centre—to look at a wider range of options? This does not have to happen now: the council just needs to listen to us.
Danny Beales
I concur completely with my right hon. Friend. We have both met those affected, their loved ones and their families, and we can really hear and see the value. Unfortunately, that value was not considered in the rushed decision made by the councillors—I will turn to the lack of consultation very soon, and I completely agree with him about that. It is not too late and, like him, I hope that the council thinks again.
The Rural Activities Garden Centre is another in a long list of closures at the hands of the local council. Following years of financial mismanagement by the leadership, the modus operandi has become to cut through its crisis. While the council’s cabinet sees nothing more than a line on a spreadsheet, behind this move are adults with learning difficulties, whose lives have been transformed by this service and who risk losing it all as a result of the council’s decision. By its own admission, it views the decision of the closure through the lens of profit. Failure to turn a profit means inevitable closure to Hillingdon council. That was the reason quoted at the recent decision-making meeting, but should social services have to make a profit to survive? To me, it defeats the objective of those services. By that logic, one wonders what will be cut next by Hillingdon council? What other social services or schools will it have in its sights?
This heartless approach to community services aside, Hillingdon council’s binary decision making in relation to profit is economically flawed. These services are not costs; they are investments in the future. The National Audit Office calculated that supporting someone with moderate learning disabilities in residential care costs £4.7 million over their lifetime. With proper community support such as the RAGC, that drops by £1 million. We save money while giving people the dignity, purpose and independence they deserve.
Perhaps the council’s inability to understand this basic economic principle of investment and returns sheds some light on why it is about to go bankrupt, receiving damning reports from its own chief financial officers. Still, Hillingdon council dismisses the RAGC as merely a “retail service”. Tell that to George, Doug, Oliver or Georgia. Tell the families who have watched their loved ones transform from isolation to independence that this is a “retail service”.
I recognise that there are similar stories across the country, unfortunately, scattering services, breaking up communities and destroying what works for short-term savings that create long-term costs, with our most vulnerable communities always the first to feel the brunt. The Rural Activities Garden Centre works. Its clients thrive. Their families are supported. The evidence is overwhelming, but evidence means nothing without political will, and political will means nothing without adequate funding.
We are not asking for the impossible. We are asking the council and this Government to back choice and independence for adults with learning difficulties and care packages and to recognise that supported employment is not a luxury to be cut when times are tough; it is a vital investment that pays dividends in human dignity and economic returns for national and local government.
The Rural Activities Garden Centre must be saved. Services like it across England must be protected. The people who depend on them deserve nothing less than our absolute commitment to their dignity, their potential and their right to belong. I appreciate the Minister giving up her time to be here today, with so many pressing issues across the health and care system. There are some specific issues I hope she will take away for further consideration.
First, I and local families would like to welcome the Minister to Hillingdon to meet disabled adults and those with learning difficulties, to hear their experience of a fragmented system and a council and NHS not working together as well as they could and should, which I hope could inform the broader review of social care taking place nationally.
Secondly, the Women and Equalities Committee report in 2023 on inequalities for people with learning disabilities outlined clearly that people with a learning disability, and those who care for them, are the real experts when it comes to their health and care needs. However, aside from the occasional opportunity to feed into consultations, far too often their voices are missing when it comes to decision making at both a local and national level. Their lived experience should be better reflected in efforts to reduce health inequalities and improve outcomes.
I hope the Government will look at how they can embed co-production and meaningful engagement in decision making on care packages and services and ensure that those with care packages and support are genuinely consulted and engaged in any service changes. There must also be clearer guidance for providers and commissioners of services about consultations and full equality impact assessments being conducted before services are changed, which has been woefully lacking in this case.
Thirdly, the NHS 10-year plan, launched yesterday, included welcome announcements about supporting people with health budgets, giving people personal health plans and a shift to prevention and community-based working for the NHS. Will the Minister address whether we can and should expect the same principles to lead work on adult social care support, too?
Fourthly, on enabling joint working, the Public Accounts Committee report in 2017, “Local support for people with a learning disability”, found that people with a learning disability who live in the community have patchy access to healthcare and limited opportunities to participate in the community—for example, by having a job. While the Department has the policy lead for people with a learning disability and care plans, responsibility for their support spans across Government. We even found that to be the case when discussing which Department should respond to this debate. Responsibilities cross the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
In its report, the Public Accounts Committee recommended that Government should
“set out a cross-government strategy for improving access to health care and opportunities”
for adults with learning disabilities to
“participate in the community, including employment, as well as how it will measure the effectiveness of this strategy.”
I hope we can return to this in future, because clearly all these Departments bear some oversight and responsibility for this important group of the population.
Lastly, I hope the Minister will join me in thanking Oliver, Doug, George and Georgia, as well as all the service users and their families, for building this project from scratch, many decades ago, planting the first trees, building the first planters, volunteering to keep it going in difficult times and creating this amazing life-changing project, and now also for their campaign to fight for its survival. I hope that Hillingdon council will think again, take the time to genuinely listen and get the decision right, working with the community. In the absence of that, I hope the Government will prioritise adults with learning difficulties in services like this one.
We were elected a year ago today on a manifesto of change, investing in people, transforming life chances and providing everyone with opportunity. These are the things that the Rural Activities Garden Centre, and so many other services in Hillingdon, have done, and can continue to do, for countless people in the borough of Hillingdon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this debate around services in the community for people with a learning difficulty in Hillingdon, and for championing the rights of people with learning difficulties in his area. I welcome those in the Gallery who are here to demonstrate how important services for people with learning difficulties in Hillingdon are to them. I join my hon. Friend in paying particular tribute to Oliver, Doug, George and Georgia for all their work in this area.
I am aware that, as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, my hon. Friend has a keen interest in health and social care matters. He will therefore be pleased to know that the Government have today published their response to the Health and Social Care Committee report “Adult Social Care Reform: the cost of inaction”. I am sorry to hear that Hillingdon council has decided to close the Rural Activities Garden Centre, but as Members know, decisions on local services are for councils to make since they are best placed to understand and meet the needs of their local populations.
John McDonnell
I fully appreciate the point that the Minister makes, but will she take advice from colleagues in other Departments on the following specific point? My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and I have been working with different groups and we have sought to register, under relevant legislation, the Rural Activities Garden Centre as a community asset, which would force the local authority to properly consult with us and to engage with the wider community. The council is going ahead with the decision to sell or close in advance of even considering whether it should be a community asset. Will she help us by taking advice, from whichever Department is relevant, about whether or not there is anything we can do, as a Government, to ensure that Hillingdon council abides by the legislation that was passed to protect community assets such as this one?
Ashley Dalton
I will ensure that that issue is raised with the relevant Department. I will say a little more about some of the expectations we place on local authorities to shape their care markets to meet the diverse needs of all local people, as required under the Care Act 2014.
This Government recognise the vital importance of co-production and working with people who draw on care and support. To ensure local authorities are meeting these duties, the Care Quality Commission are assessing local adult social care services by publishing a full report and overall performance rating for each local authority. Hillingdon has been rated as “Good” in the CQC’s recent assessment, but the report also includes feedback on areas where the CQC concluded that Hillingdon could improve.
It is great to be having this discussion today, on the last day of Co-production Week, an important annual awareness campaign to recognise the benefits of working in equal partnership with people using health and social care provision. Local councils should absolutely involve, engage and consult adults with learning difficulties on their care plans, as well as on wider decisions that affect their care and support, and their lives in general. We are committed to encouraging genuine co-production between social care professionals, local authorities, policymakers and, crucially, people who draw on care and support, to design a system that works better for everyone—one that is fair, inclusive and puts people first.
The Government recognise that investment in local services in the community is vital. That is why we have made available over £69 billion for local government this financial year, increasing core spending power by up to 6.8% in cash terms on last year. For Hillingdon, that means a total of £266.3 million in its core spending power for this year, an increase of 6.2% on 2024-25.
We strongly encourage councils to apply elements of good market-shaping practice involving providers. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about how people with learning disabilities should be worked with across the Government, but actually that applies to all Government, because we seek to serve the people and that includes people with learning disabilities.
Yesterday, we published our 10-year plan. I am delighted that social care will, for some people, be a key part of the neighbourhood health services we discussed, but the adult social care system is in need of wider reform. We have already begun that journey, including legislating for a fair pay agreement and the independent commission into social care. Over time, the neighbourhood health service and the national care service will work hand-in-hand with each other to help people stay well and live independently.
To conclude, I note my hon. Friend’s invitation to visit Hillingdon and I will ensure that that invitation is extended to the relevant Minister. I once again thank him for bringing forward this important debate, and every Member who has contributed. I hope that Hillingdon council takes notice of this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Banking Hub for Selkirk and Eyemouth
Legislation Day: Finance Bill
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government are committed to developing and legislating for tax policy in a way that achieves long-term economic stability and supports economic growth.
The Government are committed to a single major fiscal event each year, through which the Budget is delivered. Following the Budget, relevant tax policy measures will be legislated for in the Finance Bill or another appropriate legislative vehicle.
The Government will publish draft clauses for the next Finance Bill, covering pre-announced policy changes, on 21 July, along with accompanying explanatory notes, tax information and impact notes, responses to consultations and other supporting documents. All publications will be available on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS779]
Afghan Resettlement Scheme Data Incident: Update
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I would like to update the House on the proactive approach the Ministry of Defence has taken for a historical data handling incident affecting 277 individuals that applied to the Afghan relocation and assistance policy scheme in 2021 under the previous Administration.
Members will be aware this data handling incident involved group emails being sent to multiple individuals in September 2021. These emails mistakenly made recipients’ email addresses visible to all, instead of using the blind carbon copy function. After an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office, the then Minister for the Armed Forces laid before the House a written ministerial statement on 13 December 2023, detailing the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to financially compensate those directly impacted by the data incident.
Having reviewed this matter, it is my full intention to make good on the previous Ministers’ commitments. I can confirm to Members that the Ministry of Defence will be directly contacting those individuals who were affected by the data incident. Once a response is received and the affected individual’s identity confirmed, a single ex-gratia payment of up to £4,000 per individual will be made. The total cost is expected to be in the region of £1.6 million and every effort will be made to ensure payments are made as quickly as reasonably practical.
I cannot undo past mistakes, but I wish to assure Members that, in my role as Minister for the Armed Forces, I intend to drive improvement in the Department’s data handling training and practices. Defence’s record on these topics must improve and I am determined to ensure it does.
[HCWS781]
UK Onshore Wind Industry
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform members of the publication of the onshore wind taskforce strategy and updated community benefits guidance for onshore wind in England.
The Government are committed to delivering a clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030, and accelerating progress towards net zero. Onshore wind is one of the cheapest electricity generation technologies and will play a crucial role in delivering our decarbonisation goals. Having more low-cost renewables like onshore wind reduces the UK’s exposure to volatile global fossil fuel prices, which protects consumer energy bills against future price shocks. Onshore wind is therefore vital to boost Britain’s energy independence, protect bill payers, support high-skilled jobs and tackle the climate crisis.
Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the Government’s five missions. The clean power action plan, published in December 2024, set a target for 27 to 29 GW of onshore wind by 2030. Today’s publications are a significant step forward in delivering the 2030 mission. This mission is about driving economic growth as well as clean power, and industries such as onshore wind present a significant economic opportunity. For example, by 2030 up to 45,000 UK jobs could be supported by the onshore wind sector.
Onshore wind taskforce strategy
The strategy is the main output of a joint Government and industry taskforce established to identify and agree essential actions to mitigate barriers to deployment across the UK and capitalise on the economic benefits. The taskforce was set up following the removal of the de facto ban on onshore wind in England in July 2024 to streamline and maximise the deployment of onshore wind.
This is the Government’s first ever dedicated strategy for onshore wind, committing to 42 actions across planning, grid, workforce, financing and aviation. This will ensure we quickly unlock onshore wind deployment, deliver on the economic benefits, and make progress towards our clean power mission. Highlights of the onshore wind strategy include:
New actions to ensure the planning system is ready for the first English projects to come through the pipeline since the removal of the de facto ban, which severely limited deployment.
Ambitious actions to address interference issues between onshore wind turbines and civil and military aviation systems, to help get onshore wind projects moving.
A range of new commitments, alongside industry, to build the evidence base to support future onshore wind supply chain and skills interventions.
Today we are also announcing the establishment of an onshore wind council to ensure we deliver on the critical actions in today’s publications and continue the excellent collaboration with industry.
Guidance on community benefits for onshore wind in England
Government want to ensure that communities directly benefit from our 2030 goals, and today we have published updated voluntary guidance on community benefits for onshore wind in England, ensuring developments have a lasting positive impact on communities. The guidance includes:
Best practice models for benefits schemes such as community benefit funds, local electricity bill discounts and shared ownership.
Support available to communities when co-designing and administering funds, summarising best practice engagement principles.
A resource kit for communities with detailed case studies and example documentation.
The guidance sets expectations that developers pay community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year for the operational lifetime of the project. This would mean a 25 MW wind farm would deliver £3.75 million of funding for communities on local initiatives across a 30-year operating life. If we deliver 29 GW of onshore wind by 2030, we could unlock around £70 million of additional private investment in our rural towns and villages every year.
Scaling up onshore wind generation will be critical to the success of the Government’s clean energy mission. Today’s publications will give a boost to the onshore wind industry and local communities, reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, and improve our energy security.
[HCWS778]
Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The Government are today laying regulations to address the last three outstanding Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 recommendations, on personal emergency evacuation plans, or PEEPs, and building-level evacuation plans.
The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 mandate residential PEEPs and mark a long-awaited step forward in improving the fire safety and evacuation of vulnerable residents who were so badly let down on the night of the tragedy. It applies to residents living in England in high-rise residential buildings—at least seven storeys or 18 metres high—and 11-metre to 18-metre high buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy.
Through these regulations, residents with physical and mental disabilities and impairments will be entitled to:
a person-centred fire risk assessment to consider their specific individual risks and ability to evacuate in the event of a fire;
the measures that could be reasonably and proportionately introduced to mitigate against their risks and aid their evacuation;
a written statement recording what they should do in a fire and;
provision of information to their local fire and rescue service (where the resident consents to the information being shared) so they know where the most vulnerable residents live and can support their evacuation or rescue in the event of a fire.
The regulations also mandate production of whole-building evacuation plans, shared with local fire and rescue services.
The laying of the regulations addresses recommendations 33.22c, 33.22e, 33.22f—now numbers 59, 60 and 61—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
The Government have committed funding this year to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. Future years’ funding will be confirmed through the spending review and business planning processes.
In addition, Government are today publishing a factsheet and toolkit to support building owners and managers as they develop residential PEEPs. This toolkit contains real-life and proven initiatives to support vulnerable residents which have already been successfully deployed at scale.
The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026.
The Government are committed to continued and full engagement with stakeholders as the policy is operationalised to ensure that it addresses the needs of users and reflects their lived experience. Specifically, we will:
continue to engage key stakeholders on draft statutory guidance to support building owners and managers in fulfilling the requirements of the regulations. The guidance will be published in the autumn.
set up a stakeholder advisory panel with representatives of disability stakeholders and building owners and managers, to identify and review new initiatives for inclusion in the toolkit.
continue to listen to stakeholders as residential PEEPs beds in, as part of monitoring the impact and effectiveness of the policy.
[HCWS782]
Leaseholder Consumer Rights: Consultation
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The cost of living remains a pressing concern for leaseholders across England and Wales. In addition to managing the costs of household bills and other essentials, many are struggling to cope with the additional financial strain placed on them by high and rising service charges that are all too often opaque in nature.
With a view to better protecting leaseholders, I am pleased to announce that the Government have launched a wide-ranging consultation on proposals to hold landlords and managing agents to account for the services they provide and the charges and fees they levy.
At the heart of the consultation are the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 to improve fairness and transparency in the calculation and presentation of service charge demands. Once enacted, these will ensure that all leaseholders are issued with standard service charge documentation in a form that provides clear, detailed information about how their service charges are calculated and spent. The result will be service charges that are more easily challengeable at the appropriate tribunal if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.
Through the consultation, we are also seeking views on the measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to landlords’ legal costs. By addressing the unreasonable practice where landlords are able to recover their litigation costs from leaseholders regardless of the outcome of a legal challenge, we intend to reduce existing barriers to justified challenges against poor practice.
We are also acutely aware of the ongoing impact of opaque and substantial building insurance commissions recovered from leaseholders through service charges. As part of the remediation acceleration plan announcement last December, the Government launched a public consultation on measures to prevent the imposition of such charges. It closed in February and we intend to set out next steps in due course.
Improving the fairness and transparency of service charges and rebalancing the legal costs regime will significantly strengthen leaseholder consumer rights, but we are using the consultation to seek views on proposals that extend beyond those reforms to the leasehold system already in statute as a result of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Specifically, we are inviting views on reform of the section 20 process that leaseholders must go through when a landlord wants to carry out “major works” funded by a service charge. We know that one-off, unexpected, and often very large bills for major works can place huge financial strain on leaseholders. Far too many receive little or no notice about such works and so have little time to obtain sufficient funds.
It is not in dispute that buildings must be properly maintained, but major works, such as repairing a roof or replacing a lift, should be properly planned for, with leaseholders as far as possible kept fully informed. The current system does not work for anyone, whether leaseholders, managing agents or landlords, and we are seeking views on how we can improve it to make it fit for purpose.
Through this consultation, we are also taking initial steps to strengthen the regulation of managing agents by introducing mandatory professional qualifications that will set a new basic standard that managing agents will be required to meet.
Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and their importance will only increase as commonhold becomes the default tenure and existing leaseholders are empowered to exercise their right to manage, collectively enfranchise, or to convert to commonhold.
While we know that there is good practice in the sector, far too many leaseholders and residential freeholders suffer abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. While further reform will be necessary to drive up the standard of service provided by managing agents and ensure they are made more accountable to leaseholders, the introduction of mandatory qualifications in England is an important first step to ensuring all agents have the knowledge and skills they need to do their jobs effectively.
The consultation also explores other ways in which the regulation of managing agents could be strengthened, including specific interventions recommended in the final report of the regulation of property agents working group chaired by Lord Best, such as giving leaseholders the power to switch and veto managing agents. We will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in the 2019 report.
Taken together, the various proposals outlined in the consultation will provide existing leaseholders with far greater rights and protections and will empower them to challenge poor practice and unreasonable charge and fees.
Given the complexity of property law and the wide variation of leases across millions of homes, it is important that we engage extensively through the consultation to ensure the smooth implementation of the proposals in question. As such, we want to hear from leaseholders themselves as well as all those involved in managing leasehold buildings.
Following the consultation, we intend to bring the various measures into force as quickly as possible. We also remain firmly committed to commencing the remaining provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and to progressing the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good, as set out in the written ministerial statement of 21 November 2024.
[HCWS780]
Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL]
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported the Bill and the wider effort to bring justice to mortgage prisoners. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for their contributions at Second Reading. I also thank my invaluable colleague Dominic Lindley. The Bill may be leaving us now, but the campaign for relief for the mortgage prisoners will continue.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his tireless work on proactively raising awareness of this issue and continuing to maintain that dialogue. The nearly 200,000 individuals trapped as mortgage prisoners will be thanking him as he keeps up the momentum. People who are unable to secure better mortgage terms for a whole range of reasons often suffer challenging financial hardship and its detrimental knock-on effects, particularly in a world of heightened interest rates as a result of the many geopolitical risks of the past few years. This issue is a well-documented problem that has its roots largely in the 2008 financial crisis.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition understand the frustration of mortgage prisoners across the country, and we support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in his efforts to bring the challenges mortgage prisoners face to the attention of His Majesty’s Government, with a view to finding a resolution to this long-standing problem. These challenges are ruining lives:
“It’s a constant, daily battle to get up and get on with the day knowing that at the end of it there’s nothing to show for it other than being able to maintain the roof over my head”.
It is only right that your Lordships’ House continues its work to raise the profile of this issue.
When we debated the Bill at Second Reading, we raised concerns about the lengthy nature of inquiries, and we hope that the Government will seek resolution as swiftly as possible. We should not risk delaying that process.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his continued commitment to this important issue, and all noble Lords who have contributed their perspectives to the debate. As discussed at Second Reading, the origins and treatment of mortgage prisoners have been subject to close consideration by Parliament, the Treasury Committee and the Financial Conduct Authority. The circumstances of mortgage prisoners are not a matter the Government take lightly.
However, the Government consider that the Bill is not necessary. It would divert resources and focus on to issues that have already been extensively scrutinised, and our assessment continues to be that the correct process was followed when these mortgages were sold back to the private sector in the years after the financial crisis. Since then, the Financial Conduct Authority has introduced further protections, including a modified affordability assessment and, more recently, the consumer duty, which places clear obligations on all mortgage lenders to ensure fair treatment for their customers.
Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to ongoing engagement with both industry and regulators to ensure that the needs of affected borrowers continue to receive careful and thorough consideration. Although the Government maintain their reservations about the Bill, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for bringing this matter before the House and for his continued engagement on behalf of those affected.
UK Constitution: Oversight and Responsibility (Report from the Constitution Committee)
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
That this House takes note of the Report from the Constitution Committee Executive oversight and responsibility for the UK constitution (6th Report, HL Paper 72).
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the Constitution Committee’s report, published in January, on Executive Oversight and Responsibility for the UK Constitution. I speak in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who was chair of the committee during this inquiry but is unfortunately unable to be here today. I pay tribute to her excellent chairmanship, which was fair, firm, fruitful and always friendly.
The UK constitution requires active stewardship. Its flexibility is a strength that allows for pragmatism and evolution, but it also leaves our constitution vulnerable to erosion and challenge. There is a key distinction between lawfulness and constitutionality. As we said in the report, paraphrasing the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill,
“if the Attorney General had advised that a course of action was unlawful and the Prime Minister chose to pursue it nonetheless, then he, as Cabinet Secretary, would advise that the civil service would not be able to support it because doing so would be in contravention of the Civil Service Code. By contrast, if the Cabinet Secretary advised that an action was unconstitutional, for example, in violation of a clear convention, then, so long as it was lawful, the civil service would be able to support its delivery if the Prime Minister chose to go ahead”.
Obviously, there are some constitutional issues which get resolved in the courts, Prorogation being perhaps the most dramatic recent example. However, the existence of an area of constitutional issues which cannot be tested in the courts but which could lead to the Government acting unconstitutionally underlines the importance of the various methods for safeguarding the constitution. There is a complex network of guardians on whom we rely to safeguard the constitution. Parliament itself is a significant guardian and the Constitution Committee has a vital role to play, scrutinising all legislation for its constitutional implications and drawing them where necessary to the attention of the House, as well as holding the Government to account on constitutional matters.
The focus of this inquiry was on the role of the Executive as constitutional guardian. We also took an early look at the Council of the Nations and Regions, to which I will refer later. I will begin with the very centre of government. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for safeguarding the constitution within government. This is a significant responsibility which ought to be taken seriously but, in reality, the Prime Minister is much more likely to be held to account for failure to deliver on policy objectives than on constitutional responsibilities, and may find that the latter get in the way of the former.
Increasingly, Prime Ministers are tested on whether they deliver on their policy promises. Two recent Prime Ministers did not really consider themselves inhibited by constitutional principles and norms. That was bad news, but most Prime Ministers sincerely believe in the constitution and their role in defending it, in theory if not always in practice. We have to recognise how much pressure they are under to deliver on their promises rather than worrying about the constitution. This happens, for example, when Governments seek to achieve their policy objectives via secondary legislation, thereby greatly enhancing the power of the Executive relative to Parliament. An interesting comparison is President Trump’s use of the executive order to bypass Congress and state legislatures.
The Prime Minister is supported by a number of close advisers. Significant among them is the Cabinet Secretary, who plays a vital role in advising on constitutional matters. Given its significance, it was disappointing to see that this responsibility was not explicitly included in the job description during the recent recruitment for that post and that our recommendation to include it going forward was not accepted by the Government. Yet the Cabinet Secretary can also be affected by the priority given to delivery and be expected to ensure that the Civil Service is fully committed to securing the Government’s policy objectives. Warnings of constitutional impropriety can be made to look like obstruction and delay.
Supporting the Cabinet Secretary, as well as Ministers, officials and special advisers, is the Propriety and Constitution Group in the Cabinet Office. It provides advice on constitutional issues, devolution, standards and the relationship with the monarch. However, it has been shuffled around between departments, in particular the Cabinet Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, several times in recent years. We recommend in our report that it be made a permanent fixture within the Cabinet Office, enabling it to become a true centre of excellence.
Institutional memory is another concern. Constitutional precedent must be consistently recorded. Without this, Ministers and officials are left navigating complex issues as they arise without the benefit of deep institutional knowledge. This weakens the quality of advice and risks undermining constitutional norms.
I turn to the role of other Ministers. We recognise that constitutional responsibility is not confined to the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to defend the rule of law and judicial independence. The law officers, particularly the Attorney-General, are the definitive source of legal advice for the Prime Minister. We were pleased to see the new Attorney-General swear a new version of the oath that included a commitment to the rule of law. This is a welcome affirmation of this element of his role. In the current Government, there is a Minister for the Constitution, but his constitutional responsibilities appear to be limited and sit alongside very different issues such as EU engagement and the Infected Blood Inquiry.
We recommended the appointment of a senior Minister with broader responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on constitutional matters—a role which used to be filled by the Lord Chancellor when they were a Member of this House. This individual should be senior and authoritative and someone whose advice cannot be lightly disregarded—preferably somebody at a senior stage in their career rather than looking for their next job. The Government did not accept this recommendation. We urge them to give further thought to the issue.
It is important that all Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, take their constitutional responsibilities seriously. Otherwise, given that in most matters the only sanctions are political, there is a risk that constitutional norms are gradually eroded. This risk means that it is particularly important for there to be effective constitutional safeguards. We recommend that the Government should review and strengthen the status of advisory bodies such as the House of Lords Appointments Commission and consider whether it would be desirable to place them on a statutory footing.
We welcome the creation of the Union and Constitution Cabinet committee as a positive step towards raising the profile of constitutional issues within government. We said in our report that we would welcome an annual meeting between the deputy chair of this new Cabinet committee, the Constitution Committee and the Cabinet Secretary to discuss outcomes. The Government told us that they would be unable to disclose specific details of the Cabinet committee’s work because of the convention of collective Cabinet responsibility. Nevertheless, we would be happy to find ways to make such a discussion possible while respecting the convention of confidentiality. I hope the Minister will take us up on this request.
I turn to the Council of the Nations and Regions. We chose to take an early look at the council both as a follow-up to our recent report on the governance of the union and because it now forms part of the institutional safeguards around intergovernmental relations within the UK. Transparency and clarity of ownership around the council are important. We need clarity about its management, which was notably absent when the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, was briefly appointed as the Prime Minister’s envoy to the nations and regions but did not take up the job. Has someone since been appointed or was the role never needed?
We were disappointed that information about the second meeting of the council is not yet available, and we urge the Government to publish the communiqué without further delay. It is important that the council effectively complements the existing intergovernmental structures and does not leave anyone unrepresented, particularly those in much of England who do not have a metro mayor. The Government told us that these areas will be represented on the council if they choose to join with others to create a metro mayor. It is very odd to make a central part of the intergovernmental machinery contingent on a political decision to opt for a mayoral system of local government. We are concerned about their representation in the meantime and would welcome clarity from the Government on how the council will ensure that the interests of much of England are heard.
To be successful, the council requires serious and sustained engagement by the UK Government and the other Governments and regions in the United Kingdom. We look forward to reviewing the utility and success of the council in due course; I think the jury is still out on whether the council is going to become a really significant element in our constitutional structure.
The fact that we have a constitution which is not to be found in a single document and large parts of which are not enforceable in the courts provides, particularly for overseas observers, a mixture of puzzlement and admiration—but very definitely both. Essentially, it works because we have a culture of constitutional government, and general acceptance that we should observe constitutional conventions and that long-established practices have merit; they can be changed, but they need to be changed on the basis of consensus. We have tried to look at the machinery by which, within the Executive, these things are examined and, where necessary, enforced. We urge wider interest in the issues we have raised. On that basis, I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate all the members of the committee and the chair for the report they have produced and their success in getting this debated. It is always a good idea to debate our constitution, and I regard today’s debate as a welcome chance to take the temperature of the health of our democracy.
Mind you, it is not the only debate on the constitution this week; Members present on Wednesday will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, tell us that the word “historic”—much overused—nevertheless applied to the Bill under consideration on Wednesday. I say Wednesday but, actually, as I was on the Woolsack until well past midnight, I regard it as yesterday’s debate. But many interesting speeches were made then, some of which touch on today’s issues. Of course, this is the type of debate where I would rather like to see Walter Bagehot sitting in the Gallery or, if not, then perhaps a more modern equivalent: my noble friend Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield.
The Select Committee on the Constitution is one of the House’s most important committees. If that looks to the Whips like an application to join it, then I am afraid it probably is. As the House knows, over the centuries we have been engaged in a constant struggle between the Executive and the legislature. The powers of the King have gradually been replaced by the powers of the Prime Minister, and it is the position of the Prime Minister which is at the centre of this report. It is important that whatever arrangements we make for safeguarding our constitution are robust and flexible, just like the constitution itself. The report rightly states that the Prime Minister remains the monarch’s principal advisor and has
“ultimate responsibility within government for safeguarding the constitution”.
I sometimes think that we forget the role that oaths of office play in our political life. After all, each of us as a Member has to swear or affirm an oath of office before we are allowed to take our seat. The current Oath of Allegiance—not so much feudal—dates back to the 15th to 17th centuries. At one stage, Members of Parliament had to take three oaths: of supremacy, of allegiance and of abjuration. At various stages, oaths took on political and religious characteristics which were tailor-made for the political circumstances of the time. It was only in 1858 with the oaths of allegiance Act and in 1866 with the Parliamentary Oaths Act that the modern parliamentary oath crystallised into the form it exists today. There have been several updates and consolidations, the most recent of which I think was in 1978.
The point of my digression is this: I am one of those who think that there is a case for requiring the Prime Minister to take a special oath of office that would incorporate a requirement to uphold the constitution of the country. I make this suggestion because as the Prime Minister has replaced the King as the fount of political power and it is, in practice, the Prime Minister who has the ultimate responsibility for the constitution, a special oath might be appropriate.
I was interested in the evidence the noble Lord, Lord Gove, gave to the committee, when he said that he was
“very conscious of having sworn an oath”
in his role as Lord Chancellor. I think this indicates that there is merit in considering the role of an oath for the Prime Minister. If it weighed on the noble Lord’s mind then, all the more would an oath of office weigh upon a Prime Minister’s, especially when considering action that would have a constitutional significance. I hardly need add that it would cost virtually nothing.
The position of the Cabinet Secretary is the modern “buckle” that connects the Civil Service to the Prime Minister, and it is a crucial role. Again, I was interested to read the evidence submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, where he said that the Cabinet Secretary’s capacity to “constrain” the actions of a Prime Minister was “pretty significant”. I am bound to say that I did not see this reflected in the events of 2019 and the attempted Prorogation of six weeks. We all know what happened as a result.
On the increasing importance of the law officers, which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to, we know that an oath applies to them. Although the Lord Chancellor is required to take one, we heard earlier this week that the Attorney-General has chosen to take one voluntarily, which is a good thing.
Turning to some of the other elements of the committee’s report, I think it asks some pertinent questions. First, how active is the Union and Constitution Cabinet Committee? I am not convinced that it meets very often. The suggestion is made for it to have an annual meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. For all I know, it might be the only time that committee meets at all.
Secondly, how often does the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee really reject skeleton Bills or Bills with excessive delegated powers? I do not claim to know but there is no doubt that over the past few years we have seen far too many examples of both; indeed, we had a debate a few years ago on skeleton Bills.
Thirdly, there is the suggestion that there is a role for statute in consolidating the protection of our constitution. When it comes to HOLAC, there is a case for putting it on a statutory basis, and I supported the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, in his Bill, although I do not believe that its advice to the Prime Minister, however important, should be binding.
Fourthly, I come to the committee’s conclusion that a Minister should be allocated specific responsibility for the constitution. Here I part company with the committee. I am not sure that a role as important as that of being responsible for the constitution can or should be formally devolved to another Minister. It would fetter the discretion of the Prime Minister and I am not sure that any Prime Minister would wish to be constrained in this way. I do not really think that would work.
I have one final point to make. When about 15 years ago the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown authorised the publication of the Cabinet Manual, it immediately made its mark. It was described as
“a guide to the laws, conventions and rules on the operation of government”.
In my view, its very existence helped us to understand better the way in which in our system of government works—or did then. It shed light on the mixture of things that make up our unwritten constitution and hence made it easier for us to understand how its conventions, customs and practices could and should be protected.
The Cabinet Manual owed its existence to the support of the Prime Minister and the genius of the noble Lords, Lord O’Donnell and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, but where is it now? My noble friend the Minister said in reply to my most recent Parliamentary Question on the subject:
“The Government takes the function of the Cabinet Manual seriously and we will keep it under review”.
Is there anything more that my noble friend can tell us? I hope that the whole House would be interested to know whether there has been any progress.
For my part, I remain to be convinced that there is neither an appetite for nor an interest in No. 10 in tackling it at the moment. Mind you, the previous Government originally promised to produce an updated version by Christmas 2023 and nothing came of that. But there are obviously several major areas where it needs updating, such as the impact of Brexit and leaving the EU, the Supreme Court decision of 2019, the development of devolution, and the modern operation of a peacetime coalition Government. It would be in the spirit of the Constitution Committee’s report if a valuable document such as this was redrafted for the current age. If I succeed in being selected for the committee, I shall bring my suggestion with me.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, whose wisdom on many subjects is welcome in this House and I hope may be welcome for much longer.
I was not a member of the Constitution Committee at the time of the writing of this important report, as I am now, but I would have endorsed its conclusions with pleasure—with one exception, and it is the same exception mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I think that responsibility has to rest with the Prime Minister but that it is also the duty of all Ministers—more widely than simply the law officers or others—in charge of departments to ensure that they act constitutionally. I will say a little more about that in a moment.
I have spoken previously in this House of my admiration for the behaviour of the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, then Cabinet Secretary, and Helen MacNamara as Deputy Cabinet Secretary, on the occasion described in paragraph 17 of the report. Their behaviour in defence of the constitutional principle that the Government must obey the law was a fine example of the system working even at a moment of great stress, and when advocacy of potentially unconstitutional behaviour apparently emanated from the Prime Minister and those around him.
In the report, it is clear and—in my experience—accurate that attention is focused on the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary and his or her vital role. I would add only that it is my belief, having observed various models in action, that it is best if the Cabinet Secretary is also head of the Civil Service: he or she then speaks not only for themselves but as the voice of the Civil Service as a profession.
There is one matter which leaves a residual anxiety from the famous story dealt with in paragraph 17. Helen MacNamara is alleged by various memoir writers to have stood her ground by saying to a political adviser, “We do not work for you. We work for the Queen”. That is exactly what I would have said in her place, if I had been brave enough. Of course, under our constitution, the monarch only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, so the standing ground becomes a little shaky. It may need to be made clearer in law that a civil servant may refuse an illegal or unconstitutional order and that if the crisis persists, some procedure akin to the accounting officer’s report to the Public Accounts Committee should be available to put the dispute before Parliament.
My own belief is that the relationship between the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary should be replicated in every department by means of an exactly parallel relationship between the Permanent Secretary and the departmental Secretary of State. The Permanent Secretary should have the right to challenge his or her Secretary of State on what is perceived as an unconstitutional action. In cases of dispute, the matter would obviously be elevated to the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary to judge.
My final point takes me into very dangerous territory into which experts in the political trivia of the past will remember I once before stumbled, to the delight of the media. All action in politics is covered by ordinary morality. To my mind, there is no such thing as a separate ethical realm of “reason of state”. Any constitution depends on those working within it acting morally, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said eloquently in his introductory speech. The dilemmas we find when moral imperatives clash with each other exist just as much in politics as in ordinary life. Is there always a categorial imperative in ordinary life to tell the truth, for example? I believe not; sometimes it is right not to tell the homicidal maniac that you know where the axe is hidden.
In this country we are extremely proud of our capacity to deceive our enemies in wartime. Massive and successful strategies were deployed to mislead the Germans as to where and when the D-Day landings were coming. No one doubts that those lies were necessary and admirable. On the other hand, truth-telling to Parliament is a constitutional principle in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. Deliberate deception of either House is a resigning matter: without true facts laid before them, proper constitutional democratic debate cannot take place. However, there are difficulties about constant candour in public, as in private. Well-established conventions allow Ministers to refuse to answer questions on, for example, secret security matters, but what if a clever questioner traps you on a matter when telling the truth is impossible? I irritated a former Prime Minister—whom I greatly admired—because I said long ago that of course he could not give a candid answer when asked whether he was contemplating devaluing the pound. He thought I was saying that he was dishonest, which was the last thing I intended. But he could not fulfil his duty as Chancellor of Exchequer at the same time as properly telling the whole truth on that matter.
But 99% of the time, my friend Peter Oborne is right to deprecate what he sees as a radical increase in political lying. Telling the truth is a vital condition for democratic debate. How on earth are we to decide when a lack of candour—or even a lie—is justified? Some good steps have been taken since the date of my media fracas; for example, the establishment of the Office for National Statistics, which calls out misuse of statistics by Ministers or anybody else. But what about straightforward factual lies? In retrospect, the lies told at the heart of government at the time of Suez surely crossed the line—I take that example because all the protagonists are safely dead. There have been other incidents since, the protagonists of which are not safely dead, so I will not specify them now, but others can do so to their own satisfaction.
I will make one modest suggestion that might help in certain situations—though not all—the seeds of which are already sown. I believe that in those past cases, it was a failing of the very top members of the Civil Service not to protest on ethical grounds. I also think that in a democracy, the elected Ministers, if backed by the Prime Minister, should prevail and answer in the end to the political process of Parliament and the electorate. However, the constitution would be well served if the Cabinet Secretary or Permanent Secretary had the right to record their objection publicly if they felt they had to surrender their professional ethics to the ultimate power of democracy, just as they do to the PAC when overruled on value for money. Like all good deterrents, such a procedure would most likely never be required. However, this, or something like it, more formal than we have now, would strengthen one vital part of the constitutional balance so well described in the report under debate.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for turning up a few minutes late; I am afraid I was misinformed about the starting time of the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, whose many achievements, both in and out of government, make him a fitting recent member of the Constitution Committee.
This country is almost unique in having no formal written constitution. We have the bedrock of parliamentary sovereignty, superimposed on which is a mishmash of repealable and amendable statutory provisions and conventions. This make-it-up-as-you-go-along constitution has served us pretty well over the past centuries, and it has the attraction of flexibility, a particular virtue in a fast-changing world. But the danger of a flexible system is that it transmogrifies into an arbitrary system. The fast-changing world to which I refer means that the challenge we now face is ensuring a degree of restraint and propriety in a political culture that increasingly rewards speed, dominance and spectacle.
The extent of that challenge is illustrated by a number of worrying developments over the past few years. They include the excessive use of skeleton Bills and over-broad delegated powers, Bills which shamelessly have proposed breaches of international obligations, inappropriate government influence over independent regulators, the spread of ouster clauses, and questionable private sector retirement posts being taken on by former Ministers and civil servants. Particularly in the case of a constitution so much based on convention, the most serious and dangerous constitutional erosions are often cumulative minor breaches rather than sudden major ones: a by-passed Select Committee, an ignored code of conduct, an appointment made without the requisite scrutiny, a Henry VIII clause in a Bill—each individually minor, but as they seep into the culture they gradually undermine the system.
Without wanting to seem alarmist, we have thus seen a real erosion of constitutional propriety over the past quarter century. In particular, the lack of even elementary constitutional awareness at all levels of government was demonstrated during the Covid-19 pandemic, and I am afraid that that accords with my experience of dealing with Ministers and civil servants when I was senior judge. It is only fair to add that, in the past year and to some extent the past three years, things have got somewhat better, but there is real cause of concern. Institutional memory, perhaps particularly important in a system in which convention plays such a large part, has been eroded over the past couple of decades due to ministerial turnover, civil service job rotation and ad hoc government.
There are various Ministers who can be said to be responsible for aspects of the constitution, but save where the courts get involved—and they rarely get involved in matters of convention or what goes in Parliament—the Prime Minister can fairly be characterised as the ultimate guardian of constitutional propriety. It has become apparent that many aspects of our constitution can be abused with impunity if the Prime Minister wishes, or does not care enough. In its excellent report, to which I pay tribute, the committee mentions that the Prime Minister was described by a serving Minister as “a very busy person”. The pressing demands of the office must mean that his role in safeguarding the constitution will not be uppermost in his mind, save perhaps in times of constitutional crisis. The remedies for prime ministerial failures in this connection are vague and often impractical.
In any event, there is an inherent paradox in the head, or indeed any part, of the Executive arm of government being the ultimate guardian of the constitution. After all, a very major purpose of the constitution is to control and limit the powers of the Executive, so there is force in the notion that the Government, or any member of the Government, cannot simultaneously be the custodian of the constitution and the principal risk to its integrity. Self-regulation is generally deprecated these days when it comes to other institutions.
Both the experience of the past few years and principle suggest that there is a need for increased support for constitutional propriety and that it should not simply come from Ministers or civil servants in their departments. For this reason, I must confess to some doubts about the report’s recommendation that there be a new post of a Minister responsible for advising the Prime Minister on constitutional matters. If there is to be such a post, I say—echoing the noble Lord, Lord Beith—that it should be held by a very senior politician with considerable experience of law and politics and who has no political ambitions.
We can draw considerable experience from the change in the role of the old style Lord Chancellor. Maybe that was inevitable, as was the creation of a Secretary of State for Justice, but the consequences for the rule of law of replacing a very experienced, respected lawyer with no political ambitions, who could be relied on to speak up for the rule of law, by a career politician, at best a middle-ranking member of the Government, normally with little if any experience of the law, suggests that the new Minister with a constitutional advisory role will be of no real value unless he or she is somebody with considerable authority and experience.
Having said that, I support another of the report’s suggestions: putting bodies such as HOLAC on a statutory footing with a view to providing a hard-edged framework in which the Prime Minister could exercise his current powers. I would include among these bodies not only HOLAC but ACOBA, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and a body to supervise the Ministerial Code. This was one of the recommendations made in January 2024 in a paper by a UK governance commission chaired by Dominic Grieve, of which I was a member. As we pointed out, such a course would not entail any major expenditure, and it could be expected to help to re-establish some degree of public faith in our democratic processes. The extent, if any, to which the Prime Minister should delegate his powers to the relevant body, or what should happen if he did not do that but did not follow its advice, should obviously be a matter for detailed discussion.
The report we are considering also refers to the Government’s intention to introduce an ethics and integrity commission, which would, I agree, add coherence to the range of what the report refers to as “ancillary structures”, including the Civil Service Commission and HOLAC. This is a manifesto commitment of the Government, and I agree that its discharge—hopefully imminent—represents an opportunity to give both teeth and coherence to quite a wide range of important constitutional watchdogs. Again, details of how this might most effectively be done were given in the paper produced by the UK governance commission to which I have referred. These details include proposals as to how the Committee on Standards in Public Life would feature in a newly coherent structure. Again, implementation of these proposals would be a contribution—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
If the noble and learned Lord were able to wind up shortly—
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
I have just finished—thank you. I am sorry to have overrun.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for initiating this debate and the Constitution Committee for its thought-provoking report. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, as well as the other noble Lords who have contributed so far to this debate. There is much thought in what they have said, and I hope that others will have a chance to read it.
In the time available to me, I want to touch on one of the subjects the report deals with, the role of the law officers. I was Solicitor-General in the early part of the Cameron coalition, and I was shadow Attorney-General under his leadership in the year before the 2010 general election. Before that, I was also shadow Attorney-General under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Hague of Richmond.
The committee said that the law officers were
“the definitive source of advice on legality for the Prime Minister”,
and therefore had a significant constitutional role. It reiterated the recommendations it had made in an earlier report on the law officers that the Attorney-General must
“place their duty to the rule of law above party political considerations”.
I agree.
Giving evidence on 6 July 2022 to the committee in that earlier inquiry on the role of the law officers, I referred to the experience of the late Lord Peter Rawlinson, a former law officer under the Governments of Macmillan, Douglas-Home and Heath. As I told the committee, he explained in his autobiography that:
“When he was appointed Solicitor-General after the night of the long knives in 1962, he was given a half-hour seminar by Harold Macmillan about the role and history of the law officers. Macmillan told him that his first priority was to uphold the rule of law, his second was to be responsible and accountable to Parliament, and his third—very much his third—duty and loyalty was to Macmillan’s Administration”.
My noble friend Lord Cameron appointed me in a three-minute telephone call, but I expect he had rather more important things to get on with.
I suspect there are no more misunderstood posts in government than those occupied by the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. Being a law officer is not like being a political Minister in other departments. If, for example, you are the Secretary of State for Health, you have an intensely political and economic role. Every minute of your day is concerned with designing and implementing policy and working out how to pay for it. Then you tell everyone else how well you have done it. The law officer’s department is not traditionally a policy-making department; it is largely reactive. It only rarely introduces legislation. I used to describe our role as being like the lawyer in the cupboard. The Prime Minister or Secretary of State for a Whitehall department opens the cupboard and says, “What’s the answer to this problem?”. You tell them the answer, then they put you back in the cupboard and shut the door. Occasionally they might say thank you, but that was not guaranteed.
I have also described the law officers as submarines. Submarines are most effective when unseen, unheard and operating without drawing attention to themselves. I came up with this rather laboured naval metaphor in October 2010 when HMS “Astute”, then a new submarine conducting sea trials, had just run aground off the Isle of Skye. If a law officer surfaces or runs aground, either the Government are in trouble or he is in trouble—or sometimes both. The knowledge that they are patrolling somewhere in the depths of Whitehall and Westminster ought to be sufficient to persuade Government Ministers to behave by the rule of law, and to comply with the Ministerial Code and the other rules and conventions that govern government behaviour.
As the late Lord Mayhew said, the Attorney-General
“has a duty to ensure that the Queen’s ministers, who act in her name, or purport to act in her name, do act lawfully because it is his duty to help to secure the rule of law, the principal requirement of which is that the Government itself … acts lawfully”.
It will not be forgotten that when he was Solicitor-General, he threatened to ask the police to raid No. 10 to find out who had unlawfully leaked his confidential opinion on the Westland affair.
I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for referring to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, because I am very fond of his “good chaps” principle. Call it something else if you like, but good government requires leadership, example from the top and mutual trust and understanding. The law officers cannot work or advise in isolation. They cannot just talk to themselves. It is essential that they are seen to be part of the government team, albeit a semi-detached part of that team. They should not ignore what their duties are, and nor should other members of the Government take them for granted.
One of the things I have worried about over the last several years is that the fellowship of lawyers and Members of Parliament, between the judiciary and government, and between the judiciary and Parliament, has gone. We no longer speak the same language. When I took a Lord Chancellor to dinner in my inn, she appeared to feel that she was going into a foreign country, whereas not so very long ago the Lord Chancellor would not only have known most of the people there but would have appointed many of the judges in that room. There would have been a shared constitutional understanding about their separate roles, about the role of Parliament, the role of the Executive and the role of lawyers and the judiciary, and the Lord Chancellor would have defended the judges against the press and Parliament had any of them been attacked as enemies of the people.
That has gone. It is a great pity, and it discourages practising members of the Bar and solicitors from coming into Parliament. Why give up a good practice? Why swap all that for the public obloquy that goes with being a Member of Parliament in an era of social media? I know plenty of people younger and much younger than me who would have made excellent Members of Parliament, excellent Ministers and, more particularly, excellent law officers, but they will not come anywhere near Parliament because, to them, it is poison.
I am not the first to resort to the metaphor of the sea when referring to the law officers. David Mallet’s The Life of Francis Bacon portrays the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General as
“rocks upon which many aspiring lawyers have made shipwreck of their virtue and human nature”.
Sadly, we have, in the relatively recent past, had law officers who strayed way outside their remit or gave questionable legal advice. They were not the first, and perhaps they will not be the last to do so, but I hope that properly informed public opinion, and thus government and Parliament, will continue to see the benefit of the current system with our law officers being Members of your Lordships’ House or the other place.
As an institution, we need to encourage many more really good lawyers, from all political parties and none, to play an active role in politics, but for them also not to lose sight of their legal roots and heritage. We see a number of them in the Chamber most days of the week, but we need—they are not among us today, but I apologise if I cause them embarrassment —more young Wolfsons, Faulkses, Andersons, Pannicks and Banners. I could name others, but it is their younger equivalents who we need to get into the Commons. The other place no longer attracts such people, and our constitution is less well served as a consequence, because that fellowship of which I spoke has largely vanished.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to today’s debate on the constitution. I have been in government more recently than some of the people speaking today, although perhaps I am not the most recent.
It is fair to say that our constitution continues to evolve. That is why it should not be codified and why we should not set in stone a number of the recommendations before us today. One of the most important things that happens in this country is that the Prime Minister meets our monarch every week. It is a private conversation, but the Prime Minister having that direct interaction is one of the biggest safeguards on our constitutional life, and that should not be underrated.
In terms of thinking through, the Prime Minister has to be ultimately responsible. To be candid, it would be quite odd to involve another Minister with a separate responsibility and who may not even be privy to a lot that goes on when you are a very senior Cabinet Minister. People on the National Security Council and all sorts of bodies have information that many other people in this country simply will never know about and have to keep secret. That is also an important part of how they consider how they are responsible for the country as a whole. So when we consider having a separate Minister—unless it was, in effect, the Deputy Prime Minister or equivalent—we must remember that nobody else would ever have the same amount of information that the Prime Minister has when they are making the decisions of the day.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, referred to Covid. It was a big discussion in Cabinet that we could have used the Civil Contingencies Act to manage Covid, but it was decided, out of respect for Parliament, that we would introduce legislation—because we had some time—to get on and to get that view of both Houses of Parliament. That was respect for the constitution of this country and the important role of Parliament.
In terms of other aspects of how things have evolved, reference was made to the Council of the Nations and Regions and moving around who was in charge of intergovernmental relationships. When devolution first started, the Secretary of State for Scotland was the direct link to the First Minister of Scotland. That has evolved in terms of expectations. It is almost seen as a snub if the Prime Minster of the day is not the person having the calls with the First Minister—that has changed. If we start to codify a number of these things, we will not actually keep up with what is needed. That then gives some justification to Governments and the Executive to try to put as many Henry VIII clauses into legislation as possible. I would not say that they are not useful, but we just need to be careful about how they are used.
I spent three years in charge of a department that was Great Britain-wide. I was also in charge of a department where my responsibility was principally England but also international—that was a very different dynamic. One thing that has somewhat shaken the constitution, despite having good intentions, was the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. That in itself needs a revision, or thinking through how that helps the balance that we have.
I was one of the Secretaries of State who really pushed our law officers to take the Scottish Government to court when they were stepping over the line. I was also involved in two very important rulings that came ultimately from the Supreme Court—under the presidency of Supreme Court justice the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed—about making sure that the UK Parliament was the primary Parliament and, frankly, that NGOs should stop trying to use the courts and case law to overturn policy or, more importantly, legislation that had been passed by a democratically elected Parliament.
In terms of the role of the law officers, I think they are exceptionally important—of course they are. It was interesting to me that—without question—we had a lot of legal cases in Defra and DWP. There was one case where I wanted to test the patience of the courts, because it was to do with what we were doing around the changes in EU law. Our lawyers wanted me to concede, but I was not prepared to do that. Working with the amazing Sir James Eadie and others, I learned that one thing that is not written down in the Ministerial Code is that, if you go to a law officer for a decision, their decision is final. That is what I wanted: I wanted the Attorney-General at the time to make that decision, and I would have abided by it. Interestingly, however, there was so much pushback that I had already left office by the time that was concluded. This example unveils the curtain, as it were, to show that government actually does work, and it shows that it is usually Ministers, rather than the Civil Service, who are very mindful of aspects of the parliamentary relationship. It is also important that the Ministerial Code includes all the aspects of the law that we have to be mindful of and that we of course have to respect.
One thing the committee could have considered is the role of the Civil Service Code. There were several occasions when I was advised by civil servants to knowingly break the law. They may have been only minor infringements, but I challenged them on how it was possible, under the Civil Service Code, “that you are in your advice and in your inaction advising me to knowingly break the law”. I was not prepared to do that. I would encourage the committee—I am not suggesting that we have even more reports—to genuinely think about that.
I will give another weird example—it is not exactly breaking the law. Quite early on in office, I learned through Twitter that my shadow Secretary of State had written to me—I only knew it because he also published my response to him on Twitter. I had never seen the letter from the shadow Secretary of State; I had never seen the letter written in my name, but there it was: my response and my signature. Unfortunately, with these sorts of things, in the Civil Service Code, it should have been more serious than it was. Noble Lords may think that I am trying to deflect from where we are going to, but the one thing I agree on is that moving civil servants around from department to department, just following a Minister, does not work—the group should absolutely stay in the Cabinet Office.
Sometimes people try to suggest that it is just politicians trying to do this, that and the other. I am not accusing the Civil Service, but its job is to try to manage. Ultimately, I could go on about another legal case where I was named as the defendant; I did not know until the ruling had come against me formally. I am afraid that these things happen, so it is important that, when we consider the role of Ministers and how we potentially try to bind their hands, we also try to make sure that we keep the focus on the civil servants who give advice to Ministers. Sometimes it can be difficult and demanding; nevertheless, next time, have a think about how the Civil Service Code really works in practice.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I was once told that the constitution was best left to the lawyers, the historians and the former Cabinet Ministers. So naturally, here I am, a musician turned town centre advocate, about to offer my thoughts, very much aware of the esteemed company in which I do so. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for introducing this important debate and for, I am sure, skilfully participating in the committee that brought it to us.
I come to this not even as a constitutional theorist, but as someone who has spent much of his life trying to make things work on the ground: in communities, town centres and within local partnerships. Much of today’s discussion will rightly centre on the risks to our constitution, such as executive overreach, erosion of convention and the creeping use of powers that bypass proper scrutiny. I share those concerns, but I speak in cautious praise of the constitution as it currently stands. Yes, it is uncodified, untidy and sometimes obscure, but its flexibility is, in many ways, its quiet genius.
As we have already heard alluded to today, we have weathered recent constitutional storms—Brexit, Prorogation, Covid emergency powers—without paralysis or collapse. That is no small thing. It shows that our system, for all its flaws, still rests on something more than law. It rests on values, precedent and a shared expectation that power must answer to principle.
The so-called good chaps theory of government, as already referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has taken a few knocks of late, let us be honest, but it has not collapsed entirely. Perhaps it is time we updated the idea to be less about “chaps” and more about a culture of stewardship that reflects modern governance and today’s public.
How do we safeguard this quiet genius without fixing it in stone? Perhaps inevitably, as we have already heard, one of the committee’s recommendations is the appointment of a senior Minister for constitutional responsibility. The answer to many a problem in Whitehall has been to appoint a Minister for something. We have to acknowledge the Government’s response to that point and the difficulties with it, as we have already heard alluded to. Perhaps the answer lies not in centralising that responsibility, but in sharing it. Perhaps the committee could undertake an annual constitutional audit across both Houses, which could help embed a longer-term sense of constitutional care, one that is not so easily swept aside in reshuffles or by headlines. In my experience, including in my daily work, for which I refer the House to my register of interests, the most effective accountability often comes not from central control, but from shared, distributed responsibility, as indeed we may experience in this very place.
I do not for a moment suggest that we rest easy, nor should we rush to codify or concrete a system that, for all its quirks, has helped us adapt, absorb shocks and correct course where necessary. In a world where constitutions are increasingly polarised or ignored, ours, unwritten though it may be, has so far held. Perhaps this report shows us how to hold it better—not by rewriting the rules, but by renewing the responsibility. For that, it deserves our thanks.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I think he rather did himself an injustice in the humble way he introduced his speech. I think he will see when I develop my remarks that I largely agree with what he said, and I think the whole House will have heard the wisdom that he brought as a practitioner at local level on implementing these things. It is a very good lesson that the point of the constitution and the point of all these principles is to make sure that we are better governed for the people we are entrusted with. Of course, that is the purpose, and I think he set it out very well.
I was very pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, referred to the Cabinet Manual. He was right in saying that one chapter was developed and published under Gordon Brown, and that proved to be very helpful in the process of forming the coalition Government. It fell to that Government to develop the rest of the Cabinet Manual, and he referred to the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who was then the Cabinet Secretary, who led the official team putting it together. I was the junior Minister responsible at ministerial level for the Cabinet Manual. The noble Viscount is quite right that the first edition, the version we produced in October 2011, remains the only edition and has not yet been updated. That is partly because we did a reasonably good job in the first place, which is largely to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and his team, but it needs updating, and there would be some merit in that. It does not cover the whole constitution; it was deliberately supposed to be about central government’s responsibilities; but I think that having all that in one place and having some clarity about what the rules are would be very helpful in ensuring that they were followed. I was pleased that he raised it before I did. When you are the co-author of something, it is almost slightly embarrassing to be the first person to raise it in a debate in a complimentary way, so I am glad he beat me to it.
I strongly agree with the committee’s first and second conclusions and its third and fourth recommendations about the central position of the Prime Minister on these matters, but also the importance of the civil servants, not just across the Civil Service as a whole but those specifically tasked with looking after this. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave referred to the importance of the Cabinet Secretary’s role in this. When I was in the constitutional role, I felt very well supported by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and his entire team. If it is not inappropriate to point out, I note that one of the former officials who gave evidence to the Constitution Committee, Alex Thomas, who is now the programme director at the Institute for Government, was one of my key officials at the time. He exemplified the quality of the officials that we benefit from and gave very sound advice. In the end the decisions were mine, but I felt very well supported by the team. The recommendation to keep that team together in the Cabinet Office is a very sensible one that the Government should follow.
I also agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier about the importance of the law officers. Recommendation 6 here is a very important one. From my experience in government, it is still the case, notwithstanding all the changes with the role of the Lord Chancellor, that the law officers, active politicians though they are, still have an important role in government when they set out their authoritative position about what the law is for Ministers. The more we can strengthen their authority within government and take them slightly out of that day-to-day political fight, the better. That would be welcome and I strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said and the recommendation by the committee.
I understand the point of recommendation 7, referred to by a number of noble Lords, on appointing a weighty figure to support the Prime Minister on the constitution. It is a worthy idea, but I think that fundamentally, it will not work. In the end, in our system, particularly on constitutional matters, the buck stops with the Prime Minister. It is not just the day-to-day work. The evidence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave about the Prime Minister being a very busy man is true, but a lot of the way the constitution is followed in government is not about whether the Prime Minister spends a lot of time thinking about it or looking at lots of papers about it, but about the tone that the Prime Minister sets for how his or her Government are conducted, the standards and the expectations that they have for others and—and this is where the word integrity is important—the standards they set and expect of themselves.
Integrity is an important word. It is about what you do when you do not think anybody is looking. That is very important, and it is something we should all think about when we are thinking about who the right people are to be Prime Minister. It is that tone and culture that they set in Government. Whatever we say about other people, in the end, the buck stops with them. They are the King’s first Minister and adviser on the constitution. Yes, they can take advice from the Cabinet Secretary—all of these functions are valuable—but in the end, it is the Prime Minister who sets that tone.
My final point is about recommendation 14 to put various things in statute. This is where I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley: the genius of our constitution is that it is flexible and can respond to the political situation. I will give just one brief example. I had the pleasure—pleasure is maybe not quite the right word—of giving evidence to the Constitution Committee back in 2010, in a session chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton. It was a very gruelling experience, with high-calibre people on the committee, and it was about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which I had to take through Parliament. That was a very good example of trying to put things into statute which were probably best left not. The reason why it did not work was that a set of circumstances evolved after the Brexit referendum which we could not possibly have foreseen, and therefore the system was not capable of responding. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, that we should leave things flexible. In the end, the political system has to deal with these matters, and our flexible constitution is therefore best placed to do so.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for the committee’s work and for his clear and comprehensive introduction today. I thank the committee for taking on the difficult—indeed, impossible—task of trying to find ways, within the limits of its mandate, to prop up a tottering, failing system. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, for reasons I will come back to later.
If we start where the committee starts, paragraph 3 of the report says that the system is “uncodified and flexible”, and cites the Supreme Court from 2019: our system
“remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development”.
I am afraid that there is a tone there of protesting too much. The vehemency is a measure of desperation. We are stuck, rather visibly, somewhere between the 16th and the 19th centuries. That is rather acknowledged in paragraph 5, where the committee says that the constitution is
“vulnerable to erosion and challenge, and relies to a considerable extent upon individuals respecting and complying with constitutional norms”.
The noble Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, very clearly set out how much that is not happening.
I begin with a practical example. This week marks the 10th anniversary of the slaughter of Cecil the lion by a vile American trophy hunter in Zimbabwe. That reminds me of a disgraceful evening in your Lordships’ House, on 12 September 2023. A Bill had gone through the elected House with the support of all sides. We saw in this House 12 former public schoolboys drive a cart and horses through what we have always been told are the respected traditions of the House—the unwritten, uncodified rules—to filibuster the Hunting Trophies (Importation Prohibition) Bill. The unwritten rules demonstrably were not worth the paper that they were not written on.
The committee’s report refers to the
“primacy of the Prime Minister in safeguarding the constitution”.
There is an obvious, glaring weakness there if our constitution relies on one person. That is not the way for a constitution to organise a structure. More than that, I point out the position of the Prime Minister. Our current Prime Minister and his party, after a landslide election, have the support of 34% of people who voted in the general election last year. If we look at eligible voters, we find that the Prime Minister has the support of 20% of them. Of course, we do not elect the Prime Minister; we elect MPs. If we look at who elected our current Prime Minister, of the people of Holborn and St Pancras who voted, less than half of them voted for Sir Keir Starmer. We are putting all the weight of our constitution on this one person, on those incredibly fragile foundations.
Is it any wonder—a lot of Members of your Lordship’s House commented on this—that, at the start of this year, there was a Channel 4 poll in which 52% of 13 to 27 year-olds said that the UK would be in a better place with a strong leader who does not have to bother with Parliament and elections. I remind your Lordships that that is where we are today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, a wide range of people now regard the idea of coming into Parliament as poison. That is a measure of the problems with where we are.
How about, instead, we start to think much more broadly? I absolutely do not fault the committee for not doing this—I am sure it did not regard this as within its mandate. How about we think about having a proper, modern, democratic, functional constitution? That is where we have to go, because it is not what we have now. We can see the impact of this in the state of the nation—we could even say in the state of this building. It is easy to blame individuals—and I do, very often—but why do we keep having failing Government after failing Government after failing Government? We have to look at the constitutional and institutional structures.
I come to a more specific point. In chapter 5 of the report, about the Council of the Nations and Regions, the committee says:
“The Government should set out who within the UK Government is responsible for the Council of the Nations and Regions”.
It is clear that this is being taken so seriously that we have no idea who is responsible for something that will meet every six months and bring together elected mayors who represent some parts of the country. Again, we are going to see first past the post elections, with elected mayors who may well be elected with 25% to 30% of the vote. That is who is going to be speaking for their regions. These are devolution plans imposed from Westminster.
I come to a very specific point here. It is interesting that this entire report makes no mention of local councils, which are at least rather more representative local organisations. They are not included in the Council of the Nations and Regions. I point to a ministerial Statement in June, when the Government declared that councils must have a leader and cabinet model. This is Westminster directing how local councils should work. This is supposed to ensure that local communities will have the right mechanism to engage with their council. I have a question for the Minister directly. The people of Bristol in 2022 and the people of Sheffield in 2021, through a grass-roots campaign and a referendum of the whole city, decided that they want committee structures in their councils. Are the Government really going to overrule that basic piece of democracy?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I hear “probably” from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, and I fear that that may be right.
Having just been at the Local Government Association conference in Liverpool, I warn the Minister and the Government that there will be resistance to the plans to abolish district councils—the form of government closest to the people. People are going to fight.
I come to my concluding sentence. We cannot rely on good chaps suddenly discovering a sense of responsibility and honesty. Institutional structures do not support “good chap” behaviour. The Select Committee is trying valiantly to shore up something that is not working. We need to think about getting a modern, functional, democratic constitution for the UK.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for introducing this debate and for the work of the Constitution Committee in another excellent report. I will focus my remarks on chapter 4, paragraph 46, and the role of the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee—PBL for short.
My argument is that we legislate too much and scrutinise too little. This is not a new problem. We have been legislating in this place for almost 800 years. The Statute of Marlborough of 1267, which addressed the misuse of power by feudal landlords—a kind of medieval renters’ rights Bill—is still on the statute book. When Halsbury’s Statutes was first published in 1920, it had 20 volumes. It captured all the laws still on the statute book from the previous 700 years applying to England and Wales. The current fifth edition published comprises 105 volumes. In the last century, we have added 85 volumes of law to the 20 volumes of the previous seven centuries. In 1921, we added 220 pages to the statute book. In 2005, we added 12,933 pages. In 1931, there were 51 Acts passed by Parliament, but their total number of pages was 322. This year, the Employment Rights Bill alone runs to 309 pages and requires another 191 pages of Explanatory Notes.
However, this is not just the Government’s fault—it is Parliament’s fault, too. The Institute for Government has said that the parliamentary process typically adds 40% to the length of a Bill. Rather than applying the brake to the legislative instincts of the Executive, we are applying the accelerator.
The main cause of the legislative burden on Britain comes from secondary legislation. Around 1,361 statutory instruments—around 10,000 pages of statues—went through Parliament last year. Despite the valiant efforts of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the vast majority of those went through, in effect, on the nod. In 1949, Sir Winston Churchill, in this very Chamber, said:
“If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law”.
Since then, we have had more than 100,000 statutory instruments presented to Parliament, of which only 17 were rejected. The last time your Lordships rejected an SI was 25 years ago; the last time the House of Commons did so was 46 years ago.
The two departments that legislate the most are the Treasury and the Home Office. I have been privileged to serve as a Minister in both, and spent my fair share of time before PBL. In the case of the Treasury, we can clearly see the effects of its legislative instincts in the length of the Tolley’s yellow and orange tax handbooks. In 1976, the handbooks ran to 1,626 pages. By 2024, they had increased to 23,185 pages—an increase of 1,325% in the tax code in 50 years. Every regulation imposes a cost, and those costs are ultimately borne by consumers and taxpayers. Legislation can also stifle innovation, creativity and risk-taking, which are the very lifeblood of economic growth. In a global economy, it also erodes our competitiveness.
I turn to the Home Office. Between 1983 and 2009, the Home Office published 100 criminal justice Bills and more than 4,000 new criminal offences were created. However, those 4,000 new offences were added to how many existing ones? Being a diligent researcher, I of course turned to ChatGPT. The answer that came was:
“It is impossible to determine the exact number of statutory offences in England and Wales”.
To me, that seems quite an important constitutional point. If the law is made for the people and not people for the law, one presumes that, between the Law Commission and the Cabinet Office, someone should know exactly how many laws there are, and informed citizens should know why they are necessary.
By definition, each new law impedes some freedom of the individual or the market. Laws are corrective of human, market or societal failings. Yet there is a balance in a good society between keeping people safe and secure and keeping people free and prosperous. It is not possible to eliminate all risk through legislation without eliminating all freedom too. Individual liberty is a core value of the British constitution; it is a cornerstone of our democracy.
In 2013, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in the Cabinet Office published an excellent review into the causes of complex legislation. The foreword states:
“Excessive complexity hinders economic activity, creating burdens for individuals, businesses and communities. It obstructs good government. It undermines the rule of law”.
I agree. We need government behavioural change to recognise that government is about leading, not just legislating; delegating powers, not just centralising them; protecting individual liberty, not inhibiting it; freeing enterprise, not binding it; and recognising that we best uphold the constitution not by strengthening the law but by strengthening the people under the law.
I need to insert a couple of caveats. First, for the record, I am not saying that all legislation is bad—far from it. Secondly, the statistics I have used are from a vast range of sources and, despite the great help of the House of Lords Library, we have not managed to corroborate them all. However, I think that people have the right to have a definitive list of all the rules and the laws by which they are governed; it is then our duty to ensure that they are all absolutely necessary.
Finally, today is Independence Day. We wish all our American friends and cousins—and, in my case, two wonderful grandsons—a happy Independence Day. On this day in 1776, the Declaration of Independence listed grievances against the King, the first of which was:
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good”.
That seems a noble test for our work here: to ensure that all our current laws are most wholesome, absolutely necessary and essential for the public good.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, I rise to speak not as a lawyer, a judge or a senior Whitehall insider—I cannot bring the insider wisdom that we have heard so much of this morning—but as a constitutional reformer whose experience has largely been of operating outside, at least until I entered this place.
Way back in 1997, I worked on the White Paper on devolution and what became the Scotland Act. I subsequently served in Holyrood. In 2010, I chaired a Scotland Bill Committee transferring substantive fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament. All those years ago, I learned that bold constitutional reform can both embed and endure. My remarks today will be about, in essence, recovering some of that constitutional reform ambition.
I need to declare an interest. My brother is a Minister of State in the Cabinet Office. For the record, everything that follows is mine and mine alone.
As befits a Friday in July debating a cross-party report, I want to range beyond party lines and speak directly to my noble friends on the committee, encouraging them to return to how our constitution needs to evolve. On today’s specifics, I welcome the Government’s commitment to a centre of excellence in the Cabinet Office, to a dedicated Cabinet committee and to strengthening the standards landscape, albeit that, like others, I think that advisory bodies should be put on a statutory footing.
Like many noble Lords and the Government, I share the scepticism about the Prime Minister having one specific support around the constitution vested in the Lord Chancellor—although my objection is on a slightly different basis because, of course, the Lord Chancellor is an English law officer running an English territorial department. Notwithstanding the admirable stewardship of Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Falconer, and the recently ennobled noble Lord, Lord Gove, all of whom instinctively grasped the four-nation character of the UK, we self-evidently cannot rely on the occupant always being a Scot.
I turn to my noble friends on the committee. I appreciate that the context of this report was the strains of the previous Parliament. Yet I also encourage the committee to continue to look forward to tomorrow’s constitutional challenges, to dig deeper, to be bolder and to be braver on how constitutional reform can contribute to national progress. This report comes at a time when the established political order is under attack across the democratic world. Given that precarity, do constitutional niceties matter at a time of so many other challenges? I believe that two major constitutional issues demand our attention because they are holding Britain back. The chief culprits are executive dominance and corrosive centralisation.
I turn first to executive dominance. As the committee recognises, the increasing use of delegated powers, accelerated by Covid, has shifted power from Parliament to the Executive. We need to address the power of the Executive, its control of the parliamentary agenda, the creep of performative legislation and the ordering of the centre of government. All of these things commend themselves for further scrutiny.
Next up is corrosive centralisation. The UK is the most centralised large country in the developed world. Let that sink in. Notwithstanding the welcome development of the Council of the Nations and Regions, the corrosive centralisation is most acute in England, as the most recent English devolution White Paper recognises. Yet I say to all noble Lords that it will take a cross-party consensus to drive power out of this place and back to where it belongs. I firmly believe that tackling these constitutional realities of executive dominance and corrosive centralisation could make a real difference, by unlocking the possibility of better governance and the opportunity to tackle the inequality that scars our nation.
That is a bold claim, so let me, in my time remaining, try to justify it. Decentralisation can deliver better governance, because getting Parliament out of the legislative weeds is a prerequisite for better and more strategic policy-making, of the kind that we have just heard about. Without wishing to lower the tone of the debate, I simply say that it cannot be right that here in the upper House of a nation of 60 million people we are discussing south Cambridge car parking arrangements or highly localised statutory instruments. We are drowning in detail that needs devolving back to town halls, as my noble friend said.
When it comes to inequality, the UK is the world’s most geographically unbalanced developed economy. Our north/south divide has become so normalised that we barely see the depth of its destructive impact. Thankfully, driving decentralisation and tackling the north/south divide are priorities for this Government, yet history suggests that constitutional reform and regional renaissance require cross-party support to secure legitimacy and longevity.
Many of the issues that I have raised today, and that have been echoed across the Chamber, are about improving the functioning of the state—functions in which many of our citizens have lost faith recently. Here, I echo the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates. These issues straddle the constitution, the mechanics of government, Civil Service reform, regulation, judicial review and public service reform. Yet our current committee structure typically addresses these issues in isolation, while the public simply see a collective failure of governance. I commend to my noble friends that they consider nominating, for a House special inquiry in the next Session, a more holistic consideration of the crisis of governance that ails our politics. In so doing, this venerable Chamber would be getting ahead of the constitutional agenda and not merely looking in the rearview mirror.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander. I declare my present membership of the Constitution Committee, although not when the committee produced this report.
It is true that there is no single document in this country called the constitution, as there is in the United States and other countries, but it is not entirely correct to say that our constitution is unwritten. On the contrary, almost all our myriad laws, powers, judicial decisions, conventions and practices are written down somewhere, often in great detail. It is just that they are not written down in one place, in an accessible form. In consequence, much of our constitution remains a mystery as far as the general public are concerned.
With that in mind, and mindful of the powerful speech of my noble friend Lord Bates, I make three points. First, a constitution that is not fully understood, or that is partially inaccessible, may be a particular weakness in an age of political discontent. If established constitutional norms can come under challenge even in countries such as the United States, then we, with an uncodified constitution and depending also on constitutional convention, may find ourselves vulnerable. In those circumstances, it has never been more important for the general public to understand at least the basics of our constitution—parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, separation of powers and the devolution settlements, to name but a few. In that context, I warmly commend the publication by the Library of the other place on 23 June, Monday last week, of a most impressive briefing paper, The United Kingdom Constitution—A Mapping Exercise, which sets out over 300 pages many of the basic elements of our constitution.
But that is only a start. There should henceforth be an accepted constitutional responsibility that it is the active duty of the Executive to explain and demystify the constitution for the general public. Among many possibilities, there is a role for GOV.UK to bring together in one place, with appropriate links, an accessible source of important constitutional materials, to give one example. An active approach, led by the Government, to full openness and transparency about how the constitution works, perhaps even an updated Cabinet Office manual—as several noble Lords have already suggested and as recommended by a previous Constitution Committee—should be combined with increased civic education in schools and universities on the basic principles of our constitution.
I do not suggest that our constitution should be reduced to a single document or codified, but it should not be kept in a cupboard and brought out only in times of crisis. It should be actively woven, by education and awareness, deep into our national DNA, so that every citizen understands and can access the basic principles. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether the Government are prepared to undertake such an active project.
Secondly, on whether we need a second senior and authoritative Minister to support the Prime Minister, as the committee suggests, my respectful answer is no, for the reasons that other noble Lords have given. I simply add that many constitutional issues will arise in one way or another in relation to the rule of law, the role of the courts and access to the courts. In that respect, we already have a guardian of the constitution. Admittedly, it is only in England and Wales, but de facto it spreads out across the United Kingdom in the shape of the Lord Chancellor.
In the previous Government, I had the honour of being answerable to your Lordships for the affairs of the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. I was given, as one is at the start of one’s duties, a list of responsibilities. Nestling among such matters as powers of attorney and the affairs of the Legal Aid Agency, I saw the awesome words, “the constitution”. I asked, “What is my responsibility for the constitution?”. I was told, “You’ve no need to worry; it’s only there just in case”. I relaxed, but only for a short while because, unfortunately, “just in case” happened almost immediately. We had the constitutional issue arising from the Horizon scandal and whether it was constitutionally appropriate for Parliament to pass legislation to quash convictions duly made by the criminal courts. In those circumstances, I suggest that only the Lord Chancellor—a senior and respected Lord Chancellor I had the great pleasure to serve under—had the authority to deal with such an issue, which he did. Whether you think the decision was right or wrong, at least the constitutional proprieties were fully observed. My conclusion is that we do not need any more formal mechanisms to safeguard our constitution. It has survived, intact, serious upheavals over the last few years.
Lastly, on a completely different point, I somewhat squirmed to read in the report that when the then Prime Minister caught Covid and became very seriously ill, the Cabinet Secretary found himself consulting constitutional academics on what he should do if the worst should happen. Surely there should be in place, as in the United States, a settled constitutional procedure to determine who is to take over ad interim immediately and automatically if, heaven forfend, the Prime Minister suddenly dies or is incapacitated. That lacuna in our present arrangements should be filled as soon as possible.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I rise with a mixture of intimidation and emboldenment to make my remarks. I have no experience in the law at all, and I have very little direct experience of the world of politics. But I am part of the general public about whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, just adduced his concerns as to their ability to understand our constitution; therefore, I am heartened by the presence in the Gallery of members of the public. I would love there to be some kind of an assessment as they leave as to how much of our debate they have understood.
I am now a member of the Constitution Committee, which is a great honour. I see three members here, and each has spoken; that adds to my sense of intimidation. But when I was appointed, I took the report now before us just to see what I was getting into—and a very good preparation it has proved to be for this debate.
I was interested in a remark that appears right at the beginning of the report. It is hinted at—it is half-referred to—and, in this debate, has been mentioned only once, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. That is the desire stated in the manifesto of the Government to put forward a commission for ethics and integrity. Since I claim a little bit of experience in the realm of ethics, I feel now a bit more emboldened to launch forth on a discussion of this paper.
I was interested by a distinction that was made under the heading, “Safeguarding the constitution: stewardship and policy”; that is, the distinction between stewardship of the constitution and the policy outworkings —how bits and pieces of policy impact on the constitution, are affected by it, or threaten it, or whatever. I was interested in the stewardship aspect and felt that a commission for ethics and integrity could snuggle in quite nicely as a duty of the commission appointed to safeguard the constitution.
It reminds me of a debate we are currently having in our Constitution Committee about the rule of law. Noble Lords might have thought we all knew what that was; speaking just for myself, I thought I knew what it was. But the more we get experts to come and tell us about it, the more we realise that the big distinction is between a thin understanding of the rule of law and a thick understanding. It is the thin understanding—the procedural aspects of what the rule of law is—that most people are in agreement with and where there is not much to argue about. I think there is the same distinction between the stewardship of the constitution and the policies that emanate from it.
However, I read that events have overtaken that declaration, that commitment that was made to have such a commission. The Prime Minister has now repackaged the whole idea. The idea of a commission has been abandoned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had a nautical metaphor. The metaphor called to do the work here is that the concerns for those who want to steward the constitution should be gathered under an umbrella, and so one is bound to ask: what would that pick up? What would that do? What bits and pieces would be gathered under that umbrella? The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments would be one, the Committee on Standards in Public Life another; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; the Civil Service Commission; the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme; the House of Lords Appointments Commission; the Electoral Commission; the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, IPSA; the UK Statistics Authority; and the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists—well, what an umbrella.
I would prefer to change the metaphor and say that anybody wanting to take an overview of that bunch of previously quasi- or semi-independent bodies would be offering us a bucket of eels. They have their own intrinsic codes, and we are being asked to believe that a commission could somehow magic an overview of the combined work of all those different bodies, and I say that is impossible.
On ethics, this is a post-modern age where what is called a metanarrative no longer exists, where people make up their own ethical standards as they go along. A Welsh pop band, the Manic Street Preachers—I wheel this one out every now and again to prove to my children that I am relevant—had an album titled, “This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours”. I believe that the idea of the constitution, and the stewardship of the constitution, in that thin sense, is incumbent upon us all, because that is a counterintuitive stance in an age where breaking things up, looking at things in a piecemeal way, is more the order of the day.
I have made my remarks; I am glad that I have done it. I am looking forward to my lunch, and I hope that the general public will be more and more aware of what our constitution is. If not, we should ask ourselves: what are we going to do about that?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the fresh and humane takes of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.
The public see a collective political failure: that was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, in her excellent—indeed, outstanding—contribution. As she correctly says, that anger of the public, that sense of disillusionment, are exaggerated by the uniquely centralised nature of our polity. We have weaker local government here than in any European country except Malta, which in some ways is governed as a kind of continuous conurbation. When we have failures at the centre here, they are felt far more strongly elsewhere.
Here is the extraordinary thing: that sense of anger and alienation, that rage against a failing political system, have happened before we have got to a recession. I say “before” because I can read the numbers of Labour’s spending just like anyone else can. Let me put that more neutrally and say “without a recession”; we have been flatlining for a bit. It is not a response to bread lines and mass unemployment; it is simply a sense that things are not working. It is a very understandable sense. Taxes keep going up and public services are not improving. The state seems unable to discharge its most basic core functions, such as policing its borders.
What I think people do not understand until they have been close to politics, until they have seen the system in operation, is the extent to which this is not a failure of will on the part of the elected Ministers so much as a systemic failure, because the Minister newly arrived finds himself encased in an inert machine—a broken state machine. He is tugging at levers that have worked loose; he is pressing at buttons that are disconnected; he is giving instructions, and nothing seems to work.
Let us take as an example, because it was going on for a long time, the case of the Afghan hijackers who arrived at Stansted after diverting their flight at gunpoint in 2000. Six successive Home Secretaries, five Labour and one Conservative, including the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Blunkett, tried to remove them. They had public opinion on their side, they had parliamentary support, and they were unable to do it. They were unable to do it because they were jabbing at that disconnected button. It is the same whether it is planning or energy policy. Ministers come in with all sorts of ideas, having sincerely made promises, and find that the machine does not let them deliver those promises.
Until we sort that problem out, the anger and disillusion of the public will increase to the point where, I fear, they may feel, in an irrational rage—like the man who takes a cudgel to his computer because it is malfunctioning—that they need to get something out of their system even though the net result will be worse.
We underestimate the extent to which this has happened in our lifetimes, specifically since 1997. There was a new juridical system created, both by international treaty and by national law, which has massively tilted the balance against the elected representative and in favour of the standing functionary. Any incoming Government who want to restore honour, purpose and meaning to the act of casting a ballot will need to begin by repealing a great many things, and not just the international treaties that prevent us delivering manifesto promises but a lot of the national legislation—the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act and all the things that constrain Governments’ freedom to act—and a lot of the internal mechanisms of the Civil Service.
In a way, I find it shocking that we were not more shocked by what my noble friend Lady Coffey said about finding letters in her name on Twitter for the first time, because they were being written by officials on her behalf, without her knowledge. That we are so unshocked by that, that we take it so for granted, tells us a great deal about the feebleness of a Minister within this system.
The people who politically approve of all the things that were put in place are much more relaxed about the lack of democracy in the system than those who disapprove. I understand that; it is why the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is giving me a funny look. Of course, she does not like the idea of repealing the Human Rights Act and all the rest of it. I get that, but is that not an argument we ought to be having democratically, in allowing people to make a decision? Win the case on its merits; do not try to constrain future Governments through judicial activism and judicial review.
When we were talking the day before yesterday about not allowing people to come here unless they have been approved by HOLAC, I made the point that this was enshrining the system of getting an ideological committee—if you like—to vet who is a proper person to be in government. This is a symbol for what has been happening since 1997, which is that certain points of view are disallowed regardless of their popularity in the country at large. In responding, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that “That is the difference between popular democracy, which is what Hannan wants, and liberal democracy”. I want to interrogate that distinction a little.
Of course, we do not have absolute majoritarianism. Nobody is in favour of a system where, with a majority of 50% plus one, you could expropriate people or incarcerate them without trial. There are some basic defences of human rights that this country has recognised since the Bill of Rights and before. But I do not see how liberal democracy in that sense—a bunch of good chaps in HOLAC determining who is fit to be here—is any different from saying that democracy by Liberal Democrats or people acceptable to Liberal Democrats, or a certain kind of perspective, whatever its popular reach, is just not proper in these Chambers.
That has a great deal to do with what looks like the looming collapse of the two-party system we have had for the better part of a century, a commensurate feeling that the entire system has failed, and the sense one detects now in focus groups: this rather scary thing of people saying that we may need some kind of autocratic government to sort it out, just to get things to work, to make things happen, to get the public services and to make sure our borders are secure. That is the smashing-up of the malfunctioning computer and, unless we anticipate it, unless we restore power to elected representatives nationally and locally, I fear that the cudgel will descend.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this report from the Constitution Committee. I have a particular interest in that I was the first chair of the committee and was responsible for the report Reviewing the Constitution, on which this report draws and builds. I fear, though, that the gist of my speech can be summarised as: here we go again.
We have an excellent report from the committee—I agree with everything in it—and we have a response from the Government in essence saying, “Thanks, but we aren’t going to do anything. Responsibilities for the constitution are spread across government and work; there are no grounds for vesting responsibility for the constitution in a senior Minister”. Some noble Lords have endorsed that view.
We have been here before. In July 2023, we debated in Grand Committee a report from the Constitution Committee on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers. The committee advanced similar recommendations to those made in this report, and the Government’s response was essentially the same as the one before us. Rereading my speech on that occasion, I realised that I could repeat it basically word for word today.
The current Government are making the mistake of the last one in not grasping the dangers of leaving responsibility for the constitution spread among Ministers and civil servants, with no imperative to engage with it. This Government, like the last one, remind us that the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the constitution. However, as Pat McFadden told the committee, in the real world, the Prime Minister is a very busy person. Prime Ministers may not have the time to think seriously about the constitution as a constitution, and they may not have an interest or understanding. The last to give serious thought to it were John Major and Gordon Brown.
Under Tony Blair, there were major constitutional changes, but they were disparate and discrete. They were not grounded in any intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change, and the Prime Minister lacked any interest in it. I recall Charles Kennedy telling me that, whenever he tried to talk to the Prime Minister about parliamentary reform, his eyes glazed over. Boris Johnson clearly believed that, as Prime Minister, he was above the constitution rather than the other way round. He was thwarted by what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has termed the “good chaps” theory of government, but that term, as we have heard in this debate, diminishes the fundamental culture of constitutionalism that characterises British polity. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, eloquently argued, it is not the form of the constitution that is crucial but the culture within which it is embedded.
Spreading responsibilities among Ministers means that there is no one with the capacity to oversee how our constitution is working as a constitution. The Prime Minister does not have the time and may lack the inclination to exercise constitutional stewardship, and the same applies to those who advise him. As the report draws out, components of the teams in the Cabinet Office who deal with constitutional issues have, particularly in recent years, moved between departments. There is also significant churn not only in these teams but in the senior Civil Service.
I moved an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill in 2010, which the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, accepted, to his credit. It formed Section 3(6) of CRaG, requiring that
“the Minister for the Civil Service shall have regard to the need to ensure that civil servants who advise Ministers are aware of the constitutional significance of Parliament and of the conventions governing the relationship between Parliament and … Government”.
This, as the report mentions, is embodied in the Civil Service Code. I variously sought to test how effectively it is being applied, not least given the turnover of senior civil servants. It is not clear how well grounded even the most senior civil servants are in the constitutional position of Parliament and the Executive. As one former Permanent Secretary confided to me, they tend to see Parliament as an inconvenience.
I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, told the committee that, when he was Cabinet Secretary and Boris Johnson went into intensive care, he consulted constitutional historians on what the implications would be if the Prime Minister died. My noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy referred to this. The noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, appeared unaware of recent scholarship and that one of his predecessors had commissioned research on the subject. I also noticed that, in his evidence to the committee, he said that the last Prime Minister to die in office was Spencer Perceval. The last Prime Minister to die in office was Palmerston in 1865.
We need to embed—I stress “embed”—within government, among both Ministers and civil servants, an understanding of our constitution, both its key components as laid out in the committee’s 2001 report and how it operates, not least the nature of conventions of the constitution. There needs to be a systematic means of inculcating that understanding, in effect generating the culture, and, crucially, as recommended by the committee at paragraph 38, a senior Minister with responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on discharging his constitutional responsibilities. We need the equivalent of a William Whitelaw.
The current situation remains, as it did under the previous Government, unsatisfactory and, given the need to embed constitutional stewardship, action needs to be taken quickly. I look forward to hearing from the Minister precisely what action the Government will now take in response to the committee’s report. I encourage her to respond substantively to the recommendation made by my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. There is a powerful case for ensuring that citizenship is taught effectively in our schools. They need the resources to teach it effectively. Active citizenship is crucial to the health of the British polity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lord, the UK is a constitutional democracy without a written constitution. It is a very odd constitution. The integrity of our system of government therefore depends on the willingness of those in power to accept the constraints of constitutional conventions: to behave like gentlemen. This report states in its opening paragraph,
“the actions of Ministers and Prime Ministers”
in the last decade have placed “strains” on our constitution —that is a very modest way of putting something about the behaviour of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. However, that sets the context for the report’s recommendations. Furthermore, evidence from opinion surveys that shows that public distrust of Westminster, Whitehall, Parliament and government is at an all-time high makes it even more important to re-examine the mechanisms for maintaining appropriate and ethical behaviour and the “ancillary structures”, as the report puts it, that provide the constitutional guardrails against inappropriate behaviour.
I found the Government’s response to this report flabby and complacent. It ignores the acute strains that Johnson and Truss placed on our constitutional conventions, and so draws no lessons from them. What we read is a defence of the current messy distribution of tasks across Whitehall with no indication of concern that improvements might be needed. Ten days ago, I listened to a speech by the current “Minister for the Constitution”, Nick Thomas-Symonds, at a Constitution Unit conference. His message was that better delivery of public services would be enough to
“restore the public’s faith in our constitution”,
although he added in passing that we should always be looking at the adequacy of checks and balances.
Some noble Lords will have seen today’s Times cartoon, which depicts President Trump declaring 4 July the day of independence from checks and balances and of getting away from constitutional constraints—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is extremely happy that Trump is behaving in such a fashion.
Reading this report on Wednesday morning and then going into the debate on Report on the hereditary Peers Bill, I was also reminded of the parallels between this and that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, argued that a popular democracy should not create bodies of unelected people to hold back an elected Prime Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, warned against an “activist judiciary” of unelected judges constraining prime ministerial power. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has just repeated that we should not try to constrain future Governments. The whole point of constitutions is indeed to constrain future Governments. I have read much of the many writings of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, including that wonderful but entirely inaccurate book on how the Anglo-Saxons invented freedom. Actually, the history of the United States in its relationship to Britain is about the invention of constitutional democracy with all the constraints that President Washington, The Federalist Papers and others put on that, which President Trump is now doing his utmost to tear away. The difference between popular democracy and constitutional democracy is important. I stand on one side of it; the noble Lord very clearly stands with President Trump, Viktor Orban and others, apparently, on the other side.
Our unwritten constitution has executive dominance, within context which it is hoped the Prime Minister will observe, and a number of parliamentary, judicial and advisory checks and balances that are intended to strengthen those constraints. Some of those present may already have registered for the Policy Exchange meeting on 16 July entitled “Is Populism the Future of the Right?” I hope that most of us here will say, “We hope not”.
This report refers to the complex framework of institutional guardians that safeguard the UK constitution. It nevertheless notes that since the abolition of the Lord Chancellor’s office, the various bodies within Whitehall have been shuffled around from the Department for Constitutional Affairs into the Cabinet Office on to the ministry for local government and so on without really having the importance which they have.
In their manifesto last year, the Government promised a number of things on which they have not yet begun to deliver. Where is the ethics and integrity commission that we were promised? What is happening to the revision of the Cabinet Manual? It is particularly important that the Cabinet Manual is revised because it was sparked by Gordon Brown in 2008-09, partly because he believed that we might not have a single-party majority in the 2010 election. It was not completed for that, but it was a useful help. It now looks highly likely that in the 2029 election we will have a non-majoritarian outcome. At the moment, we have five parties in England effectively competing, six in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and today we have had the announcement of a seventh. That might well lead us to a messy outcome. When I look at politics in Yorkshire, I can see the party that Zarah Sultana has spoken of winning several seats in Yorkshire under current conditions. We will need an updated Cabinet Manual to guide the negotiations that may then have to follow. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about progress with the Cabinet Manual, which in an unwritten constitutional situation becomes all the more important.
I was interested in the number of Peers who spoke about oaths. As I swear at the beginning of each Parliament to be loyal to the King, his heirs and successors, I wonder whether I should not actually be swearing to obey the constitution and the laws of this country instead. I think that when a Prime Minister comes into office, it would be appropriate for them to swear an oath, perhaps in front of the House of Commons, that he or she will respect the laws of this country. It would be a very good idea for the Constitution Committee to look at the oaths Act 1868—rather a long time ago—and consider how the taking of office of one sort or another in the various parts of the British constitutional machinery should perhaps now be updated.
On the Council of the Nations and Regions, I am one of the very small number of people who have actually read the Gordon Brown report—I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, has also read her way through it—which put forward the idea of an alternative second Chamber. It would indeed have created a very different, and I think much more constructive, second Chamber than we currently have. It had some relevance to the 2011 proposals that the coalition Government put forward, which I as a then Minister struggled to persuade this House, unsuccessfully, were a good idea.
What we have now in the Council of the Nations and Regions is really almost nothing. It has met twice. We are not quite sure who goes to it nor where the secretariat is. I strongly agree with those who have said that the problem of local democracy in England in particular is a real problem, and it is a constitutional problem. I encourage the Constitution Committee to look again at what is meant by devolution and why we are losing so much of our local democracy within the English part of this country in particular.
Lastly, I want to touch on the role of the monarchy. Over the last few months, watching Trump in the United States, I have for the first time begun to appreciate the usefulness of the ambiguous relationship between the monarch and the Prime Minister. There is no one to say to President Trump, when he wishes to behave without any constraints whatsoever, “Are you sure you’re doing the right thing?”, or, “I’m very sorry but you cannot see me at the moment—perhaps in two or three days’ time”. I well remember that when there was an attempted military coup in Spain, it was the King’s refusal to agree that prevented it. For the first time, in a sense, I see that the role of the monarch and his advisers, as well as of the Prime Minister and his advisers, perhaps forms one of the few backstops we might need in an emergency.
Our constitutional issues are, as we can see from the thinly attended Benches, dry and not of interest most of the time to most people. However, British politics is in a very confused situation. The public mistrust Westminster and Whitehall, and after the next election we are likely to face considerable constitutional confusion. For that reason, the Government need to take constitutional issues much more seriously in order to fulfil some of the promises in their manifesto, which they have not yet done, and to produce, in consultation with the appropriate committees in the Commons and the Lords, a revised Cabinet Manual.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for so eloquently introducing the debate on the report today. I also take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who unfortunately cannot be here today, for her excellent leadership as chair of the Constitution Committee. It was a real privilege to sit on the committee at the time of the report’s preparation and publication, and I welcome the opportunity to reflect on its findings and the Government’s response today. I pay tribute to the brilliant clerks for their hard work and dedication. I am always unfailingly impressed by their ability to make sense of our sometimes lengthy and arcane discussions.
The report raises fundamental questions about how we govern ourselves and how we safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom’s constitution. It is a reminder that the strength of our constitutional arrangement lies not only in its traditional flexibility but in the checks and balances that uphold it. The responsibility for different parts of the constitution is split across several government departments, and the Prime Minister holds ultimate responsibility through his allocation of ministerial responsibilities and ability to transferred functions between departments.
I welcome the Government’s recognition of the need to safeguard and uphold the constitution and their acknowledgement that further work is required to reinforce and protect the democratic foundations of our nation. While the strengths of the UK constitutional arrangements lie in the flexibility of the uncodified system, it is important to recognise that strains have been placed on the constitution, and it is imperative that we make meaningful reforms to ensure its continued resilience and integrity.
On the centre of government, the Government’s response recognises the importance of constitutional safeguarding within government, and that the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for overseeing the constitutional arrangements. The Government also recognise the role of the Cabinet Secretary in supporting the Prime Minister in safeguarding the constitution. This was pointed out by the report, but the Government have rejected recommendations for setting out the Cabinet Secretary’s official responsibilities. There are potential risks in not formalising that responsibility, so can the Minister explain why the Government have chosen not to adopt this recommendation and why they have refrained from formally clarifying the Cabinet Secretary’s constitutional duties?
Without clarity, there is little hope of strengthening foundations. From my own experience in government, I know that the Civil Service often struggles with preserving institutional memory. Proper record-keeping and the retention of constitutional knowledge are essential. For example, when I was working in the Cabinet Office during the coalition Government, the Minister there, much to his astonishment, discovered during the course of an inquiry that there existed a rather chaotic room which housed the Cabinet Secretary’s so-called personal files. At the time there was no registry of these files; they were just thrown into the room. As a result, officials kept finding extra files after the initial request had gone out. The inquiry had been assured that it had been given all the documents—and then more files would come up, much to the exasperation of my noble friend Lady May, who was the then Home Secretary.
Over time, there has definitely been some longer-term institutional memory loss. The systematic documentation of precedent is crucial not only to maintain institutional memory but to enhance the quality of advice to Ministers. We saw an example of precedent not being followed this week with the ratification process in respect of the UK’s treaty with Mauritius. As my noble friend Lord Callanan pointed out on Monday, the Government have failed to follow a convention that, under the Ponsonby rule, requires that a substantive debate in the House of Commons on a treaty be granted when requested through the usual channels. This is the first time the Government have had to deal with the ratification process, and it is for the Civil Service to advise Ministers correctly on the constitutional precedent. Both my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth referred to the need for clearer understanding of what happens if the Prime Minister becomes incapacitated or dies in office.
So, while I welcome the Government’s recognition of a need for a centre of expertise on constitutional matters, setting out the propriety and constitution group in the Cabinet Office to undertake that role, there is a case to go further. For the entire time I was in government, the propriety and constitution group did not always draw on the available precedent; there was a search for, or more of a scramble in search of, principles. My noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy made a powerful case for the need to hold those principles and all that information in one place.
As it stands, the propriety and constitution group does not have the institutional memory, and it is not clear to which Minister it is accountable. This is not a peripheral issue; it is central to the resilience of our constitutional framework. How, therefore, do the Government intend to safeguard the UK’s constitutional integrity across further Administrations if they fail to preserve such vital institutional knowledge within the Civil Service?
I take this opportunity to reflect on the role of the propriety and constitution group more broadly. I caution the Government to be careful about giving the group even more power. In its propriety role, it already controls all constitutional advice given to the Prime Minister. It manages the Honours Secretariat. It exercises day-to-day oversight of every major standards body in government, which includes the independent adviser on ministerial interests, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, the Civil Service Commission, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Each of those bodies was intended to serve as a check on executive power, but instead they are line-managed by the Cabinet Office directorate.
The group’s remit extends to many areas, including public inquiries, major state events, the Privy Council and the Royal Household. It controls the freedom of information process at the heart of government and decides what the public are allowed to know and when they are allowed to know it. Indeed, its officials interpret the Cabinet Manual, to which many noble Lords have referred today, including the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and my noble friend Lord Harper.
The point is that it is unclear to which Minister the group reports on all these areas. That is not really how a democratic constitution is meant to function. Civil servants are supposed to advise and to challenge, as my noble friend Lord Waldegrave pointed out. But Ministers are supposed to decide and then answer for those decisions. My noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Hannan made some key observations in this regard. This has been a quiet but fundamental shift in the role of the propriety and ethics part of the Propriety and Constitution Group, which Ministers should watch with care.
There is obviously a need for a centre for constitutional affairs which functions effectively and is able to provide accurate advice to Ministers, but there would also appear to be a bit of a question mark over whether the centre should sit in the same group which has responsibility for propriety in government. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered establishing a constitution unit which is separate from the propriety work of the Propriety and Constitution Group? As other noble Lords have rightly noted, the new Council of the Nations and Regions has made a strong start. However, it should serve to complement, rather than replace or compete with, the direct and formal meetings between the Prime Minister and the heads of the devolved Governments.
On the role of other Ministers, while I accept that constitutional oversight rests ultimately with the Prime Minister—I am absolutely mindful of the reservation expressed today by many noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and my noble friend Lady Coffey—I think there is a case to assign some clear ministerial responsibility in this area. We talk about the centre of expertise: to whom would that be specifically accountable? The Prime Minister already carries an extensive portfolio of demanding responsibilities. Appointing a senior Minister to advise on constitutional matters and be accountable to Parliament for the work of the centre would not only alleviate some of that burden but potentially strengthen democratic accountability and transparency. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on the value of appointing such a senior and authoritative figure to carry out this role.
Finally, I turn to the critical matter of constitutional decision-making. When constitutional considerations are woven into policy development, tensions can arise. These are too often left unexamined. As noble Lords will know, the revised Ministerial Code, published by the Prime Minister in November 2024, expanded the powers of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, granting enhanced authority to investigate ministerial conduct.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has gone further and recommended that the independent adviser and other key regulators such as the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments should have a statutory basis. Here I concur fully with my noble friend Lord Harper and the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, that the constitution is best when it remains flexible and allows the political system to respond. In my view, the Government must be extremely wary of any proposal to put these powers in statute.
In the case of the independent adviser, it would elevate the role in a way that may come to challenge the authority of the Prime Minister, who is the sovereign’s chief adviser. The independent adviser was established to provide independent advice to the Prime Minister, not to act independently of the Prime Minister. This shift potentially undermines the intended balance, and I strongly urge the Government to keep it under close review.
To conclude, while I welcome aspects of the Government’s response, it is clear that further steps are needed to ensure that our constitutional framework remains robust, transparent and resilient. Safeguarding the constitution is central to our democracy and we must not shy away from the architecture that upholds our democracy. It is our duty to ensure that our processes are legitimate and accountable, so that citizens hold trust in our institutions. I thank the Government for their response and urge the Minister to consider the points raised. I look forward to hearing from her.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for securing this excellent and informative debate, and for her time spent chairing the Constitution Committee, during which it produced the report we are debating. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for leading the debate and making sure that we were well structured before we started. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what I think has been a rich, interesting and, as always, challenging debate.
The Government’s commitment to upholding the UK’s constitutional arrangements is one we take very seriously. Since the election, the Government have worked to return to a politics of service. This extends from our commitment to maintain high standards in public life and the rule of law to the delivery of the reform agenda set out in the manifesto—including the reform of the House of Lords, which we debated extensively, again, this week—and resetting the UK Government’s relations with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords have referenced throughout the debate, the UK does not have a codified constitution. Instead, the UK’s wide-ranging and complex constitutional arrangements have evolved over time and continue to do so. They consist of various institutions, statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, principles and practices. As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, reminded us, there are significant benefits to having this level of flexibility. The Government believe that this characteristic is not merely a feature of our constitutional arrangements but a fundamental advantage that allows us to respond flexibly to meet the complex challenges that are a feature of the modern world.
The Government are of course committed to ensuring that Parliament is able to play its crucial role in scrutinising the work of government. Allowing Parliament the time it needs to properly scrutinise and debate legislation is at the core of maintaining a high quality of legislation. The Government greatly value the work of your Lordships’ House and the revising function it performs. The other place, as the democratically elected Chamber, has a vital role to play in representing the interests of its constituents and holding the Government to account.
The Government are also committed to ensuring that other constitutional safeguards are able to work effectively. This is why the Prime Minister has given the independent adviser on ministerial standards the power to initiate investigations without needing the Prime Minister’s approval. I will return to that role in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
Regarding the role of Ministers, which was an important theme of today’s debate, the report suggests that constitutional oversight be given to one senior member of the Cabinet. This has sparked an interesting debate, with varying views. The Government, unsurprisingly, agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, and many others, when we suggest that this role is better fulfilled by all members of His Majesty’s Government in carrying out their duties. Noble Lords are aware that, as the sovereign’s principal adviser and the most senior member of the Government, the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for overseeing the UK’s constitutional arrangements. In addition, the Prime Minister has a specific constitutional role in advising the sovereign on the exercise of the royal prerogative in relation to the appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignations of other Ministers. He is supported in this role by the Cabinet Secretary.
At this point I want to reference the point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, regarding the role of the Cabinet Secretary. I appreciate the point raised in the report. In evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, the Cabinet Secretary himself in February stated:
“The Cabinet Secretary’s job is to bring together all those sources of constitutional thought and give the Prime Minister some advice on which they can then properly and well-informedly make their decision”.
While it is not explicitly stated in the job description, as pointed out by noble Lords on the committee, I believe that both the current occupant and all previous Cabinet Secretaries believed upholding the constitution to be implied in the very definition of their role.
Going back to Ministers, certain Ministers will naturally have a portfolio that places constitutional matters at the centre of their decision-making. The Cabinet Office serves as the home of policy relating to the UK constitution and devolution, working closely with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has oversight for all Cabinet Office policy. He is supported by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is also the Minister for the Constitution, and by the Minister of State who supports on intergovernmental relations—otherwise known as the brother of my noble friend Lady Alexander.
The machinery of government change that took place following the election, moving union and devolution policy from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government back to the Cabinet Office, further strengthens the Cabinet Office’s role as the centre of expertise on the constitution within government. The Government believe that the current arrangement, in which constitutional consideration is incumbent on all Ministers, is preferable to one where responsibility sits with a single Minister.
I do not think any of us would want Government Ministers to think that matters of the constitution and the strength of the union are someone else’s responsibility and will be dealt with by them, particularly as what could be considered constitutional goes much further than the roles I have listed so far—something the Constitution Committee has recognised in its descriptions of the five key tenets of the constitution.
For instance, the Lord Chancellor, as we have discussed, has a specific responsibility to protect the independence of the judiciary. Likewise, the law officers, as chief legal advisers to the Crown, have an important constitutional role in advising Ministers on their legal obligations and promoting the rule of law at home and abroad. In fact, the importance that this Government place on Ministers performing their constitutional duties is demonstrated in the oath sworn by the Attorney-General on taking office, which commits them to respecting the rule of law and serving the King in its first line.
The Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Leader of the other place act as the Government’s representatives in the legislature and the representatives of either House in the Government. The Leaders are responsible for representing the interests of both Houses and ensuring that the customs and principles that make Parliament unique are properly represented. Considering the wide range of subjects that a single Minister responsible for constitutional matters would be expected to cover, the Government believe that it is appropriate to maintain the current approach.
Moving on temporarily to intergovernmental relations, the Government’s manifesto commitment to reset the relationship with devolved Governments and to ensure that the structures and institutions of intergovernmental working improve relationships and collaboration on policy is key. That is why, almost a year ago today, the Prime Minister spoke to the heads of the devolved Governments within hours of taking office. The Government have continued in that vein. We have spent the last year working across all levels of government to deliver for every part of the United Kingdom and are using, and will continue to use, the intergovernmental structures to collaborate with the devolved Governments.
We have recommitted to the IGR structures, as has been evidenced in recent weeks. At the end of May, we held the second Council of the Nations and Regions in London. This brought together the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the heads of the devolved Governments and the regional mayors from across England for the second meeting since we took office. Alongside the council, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met multilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. This was in addition to the bilateral meetings the Prime Minister held with them on the same day.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on a communiqué related to this meeting of the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Government have published the current terms of reference for the council and value the scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament of the worth of the governance of the council through inquiries, Parliamentary Questions and regular engagement with departments as part of the scrutiny of government activity—I have responded to much of this in my role. So, although a communiqué was not published on this occasion, Ministers will continue to update both Houses through the regular scrutiny mechanisms.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised how other organisations that are not part of the Council of the Nations and Regions get to engage. Minister Alexander has been appointed as Minister of State to support cross-government co-ordination and engagement with the devolved Governments. This appointment shows how serious the Prime Minister and this Government are about working with the devolved Governments to deliver for citizens across the UK.
The English Devolution White Paper sets out that the mayors of strategic and established mayoral authorities will be able to be members of the CNR, as we have referenced. The Government want to see all of England benefit from devolution, with full devolution coverage across the country, with an ambition for all areas to have a mayor. We are committed to working productively with local government, and the Government have established the Leaders’ Council to bring together other local leaders and Ministers to identify and tackle strategic challenges facing local government.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has travelled, alongside the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to Belfast, where they chaired the first east-west council under this Government. They then attended the 43rd summit of the British-Irish Council in Newcastle, County Down, where the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster met bilaterally with the heads of the devolved Governments. A fortnight later, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other UK Ministers met with the Ministers responsible for intergovernmental relations from the devolved Governments at the Interministerial Standing Committee.
We are genuinely seeking to engage using the current structures and the new Council of the Nations and Regions structures to make sure that engagement in formal intergovernmental forums and informal everyday contact at official level works better than it has historically done. Through this, we are ensuring that there is genuine respect and collaboration across the different Governments who make up the United Kingdom and are focusing on a future built on partnership and recognition.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the representation of English regions and counties without a mayor. As is always the case with our diverse intergovernmental structures, there are other mechanisms for engagement and we will continue to ensure that we progress with them.
I turn to some of the specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made an interesting suggestion about the right for the Cabinet Secretary and others to record public dissent. The very suggestion of that might also suggest that some changes would happen in government, but I look forward to reflecting on that in the department and will report back in due course.
Noble Lords will be aware that I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, so I am ever so sorry to other participants but the analogy from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was my favourite, not least because HMS “Astute” was in the bay at my wedding in Gibraltar in recent months. I would like to gently remind the noble and learned Lord of something. I appreciate his concerns, but I remind him that the Prime Minister and my noble friends the Attorney-General and the Scottish Advocate-General have had distinguished careers at the Bar. This may be one point where it is clear that those at the top of our Government have complete respect for the role of the judiciary and some respect for the legal profession, given that they are all from it.
Lord Garnier (Con)
No doubt the noble Baroness will have noticed that I was not referring to any of those three people.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I absolutely did, but I think on this occasion we can suggest that this Government are very clear in their commitment to the rule of law and the people who are in post.
There was a great deal of discussion about good chaps—I like to think chaps and chapesses—at the heart of which, as touched on by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, was the culture of stewardship that we have a collective responsibility to deliver with regard to our constitution. We all have an extraordinarily privileged position in sitting in your Lordships’ House and being part of our constitution. Therefore, the onus is on us to make sure that we work as members of the Government and as Members of Parliament to deliver on it.
I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about Bristol City Council. I went to school in Bristol, so I have a particular interest there. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, gave us a masterclass; I loved his historical comparisons and imaginative use of ChatGPT. I speak in your Lordships’ House on many different issues, and AI always manages to get into the debate. I did not think it would do so today, but I appreciate the ingenuity.
My noble friend Lady Alexander made a fascinating and very important point on the devolution settlement and the role of the Lord Chancellor. It is a position we have discussed in great detail in recent days and which I will reflect on, given the responsibilities we place on it. I am proud of the work that our party has done to drive the devolution agenda to deliver for people. We will continue to do so through the English devolution settlement and by making sure that devolution continues to work.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, raised a very interesting point about ensuring deeper public understanding of our constitution. As I said, there is an onus on all of us to do that; it is incredibly important for all citizens and lots of parliamentarians do extraordinary work to support public understanding. I will take away his suggestion, but I am not sure that a single programme led by government on promoting the constitution would be effective.
Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, touched on active citizenship. Citizenship is on the national curriculum. We are currently undertaking a review of the national curriculum and I hope that when we get the outcome of the review, we will be able reflect on this and other issues related to citizenship.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, knows that I genuinely enjoy his oratory in your Lordships’ House, not least because it forces me to question my own opinions every time to make sure that my views are in line with my values as much as his align. It will not surprise him, therefore, that although his speech was fascinating as ever, I still believe in the role of the Human Rights Act in ensuring that there are safeguards for the operation of government and the other safeguards that were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I thank him for his decades of work on constitutional protections. The Government have well-established parliamentary and devolution capability programmes for civil servants, but there is always more to be done. I will go back and look at exactly what we need to do and the suggestions we need to follow.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the current political environment. I remind noble Lords there are four years until the next general election, and we will see how many political parties we will be facing in four years’ time, but I do reflect upon the seven that are now in existence. Noble Lords who are aware of my own personal travails will be aware of what I think of the establishment of the most recent of those political parties. His suggestion regarding the 1868 oaths Act is an interesting one, and I will have a conversation about it in the department. I also thank him for reminding us of the important role the monarch plays within our constitution, but also the subtle way that conversations can be had that give a level of importance to the Prime Minister.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I say that the Cabinet Secretary’s filing system sounds all too familiar and similar to my own. All members of the Government should reflect on our own filing systems, in both our emails and on paper. She had interesting thoughts on the Propriety and Constitution Group, and I would welcome a further conversation with her outside your Lordships’ House to consider what next steps we might need to take and possible areas of reform. I reassure all noble Lords that members of the Propriety and Constitution Group are accountable to the relevant Ministers, as is normal for all civil servants. For a moment during the noble Baroness’s speech, I thought she was about to suggest that we need another arms-length body, and I was amazed, but absolutely not—she did clarify that that was not something she would welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, also raised a point about the Propriety and Constitution Group. I reassure him that while the union and devolution teams have moved from and back to the Cabinet Office, the Propriety and Constitution Group has consistently been in the Cabinet Office. This gives us the opportunity to preserve institutional memory, as was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger.
On the Cabinet Manual, the Government are focused on delivering the commitments outlined in our manifesto. We know the importance of the Cabinet Manual and while we do not currently have plans to update it, we are keeping it under review.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I ask for an assurance that when the Cabinet Manual is renewed, there will be consultation with the appropriate committees in both Houses before it is published.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am going to say yes, and we will see how much trouble I have just got myself in.
Lord Harper (Con)
On that point, it is quite important that the Minister commits to consulting Parliament, but it was very clear that the Cabinet Manual remains an executive document and it should not be approved by either House of Parliament; it should remain owned by Ministers. I think that distinction is worth getting on the record.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and probably just saved me from myself—I would have got in trouble. This is very clearly an executive document, as he was party to, but this Government will want to consult as widely as possible, which is why I also want to meet the noble Baroness on other issues, because wider consultation is important. The noble Lord did nearly get me in trouble.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, touched on the UK internal market. We are going through the statutory review process. Although we are ahead of time, we have just finished the consultation, and we are currently reflecting on it. She made an important point.
There were many other points raised that I realise I am not going to get to, but that just shows quite how important and wide ranging the debate has been. I will come back to noble Lords on their point that I have not been able to touch on. I thank noble Lords for their participation in today’s debate, and for, as ever, ensuring that I learn something in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I thank the House for a truly excellent debate. I know it is conventional to say what a good debate we have had, but I genuinely think that the committee’s work has been greatly helped by the way its report has been considered, including the detailed way in which the Minister has responded, even though I am disappointed by some of the things that she has not committed herself to—perhaps I was not as good as my noble friend at getting her into trouble.
One of things that became quite clear in the debate is that there is an appreciation that, although most people want the Prime Minister to retain the responsibility for adherence to constitutionality, the pressures on the Prime Minister are considerable, and some other ways have to be found of making sure that this is not an unrealistic way of dealing with the matter. There are some differences of view as to whether we create a senior Minister with this role or simply make sure that all Ministers at every level are more firmly committed to dealing with constitutional matters and providing appropriate advice to the Prime Minister.
There is a very good degree of acceptance in the House of almost all the other recommendations made by the committee. We will reflect on what the debate has brought forward and what the Minister has said, which will be relevant to the committee’s current and future inquiries. I also assure the House that the committee will continue, week by week, its work of examining all the legislation that comes before the House to see whether it has constitutional implications and, when it does, to make them clear to the House.
I am sure the House will agree that it has taken note of the committee’s report.
Still-Birth (Definition) Bill [HL]
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I am overjoyed to introduce this important Bill to your Lordships’ House. I thank the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for ensuring that there was time for the debate today; I am most grateful to him. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for her support and commitment to improving care for those who have suffered baby loss, and all noble Lords who have offered their support too. I know that the thousands of people who are hoping for change in the definition of stillbirth are most grateful. This debate means more than words can convey.
Let me begin by asking a deeply personal and profoundly painful question: how many among us have experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby during pregnancy? I have. My husband and I have been blessed with two wonderful children, but we also endured multiple pregnancy losses. Each one left a permanent mark. For nearly four decades we grieved privately, our pain unspoken and our babies unacknowledged. This was the same for millions of families, but it changed last year with the introduction of the certificate of loss, a formal and enduring recognition of the lives we lost. We felt so uplifted when we applied for our certificate of loss, which is proudly displayed on the wall alongside our family photos. To date, tens of thousands of certificates of loss have been issued, and I thank both the current Government and previous Governments for their leadership in making this become a reality, as well as the Saying Goodbye charity for its extraordinary work campaigning tirelessly for a decade for the creation of a certificate of loss for those who have suffered baby loss. I worked with the charity to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to see this brought in, and commend the pregnancy loss review led by Zoe Clark-Coates MBE, founder of Saying Goodbye, and Samantha Collinge. Their recommendations made these certificates become a reality.
Today I bring before noble Lords the next necessary step: to amend the legal definition of stillbirth in UK law. Currently, a stillbirth is defined as the loss of a baby occurring from the 24th week of gestation until birth. This definition, established by the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992, was a step forward, lowering the threshold from 28 weeks, in line with updated viability guidance, and granting grieving parents access to bereavement leave, maternity and paternity benefits and legal recognition of their loss. However, more than three decades on, this definition no longer reflects the medical realities, nor the profound emotional impact of baby loss.
Each year, up to 10,000 families in the UK lose their babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. These parents are excluded from maternity protections, bereavement leave and statutory recognition of their loss as a stillbirth. Although the new certificates of loss offer deeply symbolic recognition, these families still face the trauma of returning to work within days —sometimes even hours—of delivering their deceased child. They lose pregnancy-related medical exemptions immediately. Many are left without paid leave or time to heal, emotionally or physically.
I want to tell your Lordships about the experience of a lady I call “Carla” to protect her privacy. She says:
“I lost my son at 23 weeks pregnant, a ‘late miscarriage’. When I found out that my son would likely pass away, all I wanted was to make it to 24 weeks. To have him acknowledged legally as a person, to feel like my miscarriage and the trauma associated with my 48-hour labour acknowledged for how horrifying it actually was. To have a bit of extra space to breathe by having maternity pay and benefits rather than returning to work. However, I missed it by 6 days. I was fortunate that my employer was understanding and I had 2 months off at full pay. However, I still had to return well before I was ready, still feeling very traumatised and recovering physically as I went back to a busy job. I had to return to work the week after my son’s funeral as it took that long to have his body released after the post mortem examination. My de-brief meeting was quick by NHS standards at 3 months, however, I was back to work full time and I had to go into work before and after the meeting, where they told me why my son died”.
To compound this tragic experience, Carla would not have been eligible to receive support from the children’s funeral fund, which was set up to cover burial costs for children under the age of 18 or stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy. A change in the definition would have had an impact: it would benefit bereaved parents and give some solace to those enduring the trauma of stillbirth after 24 weeks. As the ruling currently stands, we are asking grieving parents to carry on as though nothing happened. This is not compassion; it is a legislative blind spot, which we now have the opportunity, and indeed the obligation, to address.
I warmly welcome the Government’s recent commitment to explore the introduction of paid bereavement leave for parents who have experienced the devastating loss of a baby before 24 weeks’ gestation. This measure, which was among the 73 recommendations of the pregnancy loss review and highlighted in the Women and Equalities Committee report, would represent a meaningful and long-overdue step forward in recognising and supporting families through pre-24-week pregnancy loss.
It was also good to hear, during the Employment Rights Bill’s Report stage in the other place, the Minister for Employment Rights state that the Government
“fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for”
those who have experienced
“pregnancy loss … We look forward to further discussions … as the Bill moves on”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 861.]
to other stages. This is most reassuring. But while the introduction of some paid leave would go a long way to help the hundreds of thousands of people who experience baby loss, my Bill seeks to go much further and extend all rights and benefits that currently exist to losses after 24 weeks’ gestation to include losses from 20 to 24 weeks.
Internationally, the UK is falling behind most developed nations. The World Health Organization defines stillbirth as a loss from 22 weeks’ gestation, and countries such as France, Sweden and the Netherlands follow that definition. Others, including our closest allies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, have gone even further and recognised stillbirths from 20 weeks.
Importantly, I point out that none of these changes relates to viability, which remains medically distinct; rather, they reflect a growing consensus that we must respond to the human experience of loss, not just clinical thresholds. I am not asking us to redefine viability; I am asking us to redefine compassion, to recognise humanity for every baby lost from 20 weeks onwards and to extend to their parents the dignity, support and legal recognition that what they go through desperately needs.
Let us be clear: this Bill proposes to change the definition of stillbirth to include losses from 20 weeks’ gestation until birth. This would enable thousands of grieving families each year to access protection already afforded to those whose loss occurs after 24 weeks, including bereavement leave, maternity and paternity pay, eligibility for funeral funds and the formal recognition of their baby’s stillbirth. This is not only just but well overdue. The law should not distinguish between the heartbreak of a 23-week loss and a 24-week loss; the pain is the same, the baby is the same and the need for support is the same.
I am mindful that some may express concern that this proposal could affect the rights and privacy of those who undergo a lawful termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks, whether for elective reasons or out of medical necessity. It is important to note that reducing the gestational threshold for stillbirth registration to 20 weeks could, under the current legal framework, result in approximately 3,000 terminations falling within the scope of the mandatory registration each year. This would mean that individuals’ personal details would be formally recorded and, potentially, made disclosable under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 via the Registrar-General. For many, this could represent a significant and distressing intrusion, with implications for their physical and mental well-being.
With this in mind, in a survey conducted by Saying Goodbye, of the 194 people who had undergone a termination for medical reasons—known as a TFMR—more than 87% of the people who terminated between 20 and 24 weeks stated that they would welcome mandatory registration if it meant that their baby would be classed as stillborn. To avoid any unintended consequences, and following the precedent set in other Acts, I propose that any legislative amendment in this area should include a clear and specific exemption—namely, to exclude cases where an elective, non-medical termination was chosen but to include terminations for medical reasons. This would ensure that elective terminations between 20 and 24 weeks would not be subject to stillbirth registration, would not require certification by a clinic, would not impose any legal duty to register the loss with a registrar, and would exclude these losses from statutory benefits. This safeguard would uphold the integrity of the proposed changes while protecting the privacy and dignity of those affected by complex and often heartbreaking decisions.
My Bill is about fairness and consideration. It is about modernising outdated legislation in line with global best practice. Above all, it is about honouring the lives of those who were lost too soon and standing alongside the parents who carry that loss for the rest of their lives. This is why I am an ambassador for Saying Goodbye, a charity that is at the forefront of support and walks alongside tens of thousands of bereaved parents each month. I urge your Lordships to join me in supporting this Bill. Let us ensure that no grieving parent is left without support, recognition or dignity simply because of a date on a medical chart. Let this House be remembered not only for debating this issue but for acting on it. I look forward to listening to the other speakers and to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I will speak in support of the principles of this Bill, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for having brought it to the House. One of the best traits in human nature is using the difficult experiences that we ourselves encounter to speak up for others facing similar situations. I applaud the noble Baroness for using her experience and her voice in this way, and especially for the achievement of the introduction of certificates of loss last year.
During my time as a vicar in south-west London, another inspiring woman from within my then congregation came to me with the idea of starting a listening service for women who had miscarried or were facing difficult or unintended pregnancies. This was partly born out of her own experience and partly out of the fact that she lived around the corner from a large BPAS abortion clinic, where a constant trickle of women, sometimes accompanied by their partners or their mums and sometimes quite alone, would make their way to the front door, often in considerable distress, with very little time or opportunity to think through what was for some a desperately difficult decision. It was not long before my congregation member had assembled a small group of other people—about six in all—who were enthused by the vision. They undertook substantial training, not least given the extreme sensitivity of what they would be doing and the need to ensure that they were both professional and non-directive in their approach.
I visited the BPAS clinic shortly afterwards to let it know what we were doing and was met with considerable suspicion, bordering on hostility. This was understandable, as their previous experience of Christians had been of small groups of people who would occasionally stand outside waving placards. We pressed on regardless, and formally opened our pregnancy centre in 1999, advertising its services through the local press and a few sympathetic doctor’s surgeries. After a very slow start, a journalist from one of the national dailies made use of the service and bravely wrote about the very positive experience of the support that she had received. Similar stories began to circulate, so that the number of those seeking help each year grew into double and then treble figures, with the BPAS clinic itself slowly warming to the idea and eventually advertising it on its notice board. The service continues to this day as an organisational member of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, and now has eight part-time staff and 27 volunteers serving those facing an unintended pregnancy or pregnancy loss through termination, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm loss or stillbirth.
One consequence of our new initiative was that, from time to time, someone would want to see a priest to organise a small-scale funeral, or at least some simple prayers, to acknowledge the life that had been lost. Here, I was much helped by the liturgical resources provided by the Church of England, which themselves draw on the considerable experience of our hospital chaplaincy teams. That experience taught me the sheer extent of the trauma of pregnancy loss for many mothers, and often for their partners too, most especially where that loss occurs in the second half of a pregnancy. This very simple Bill, which reduces the legal definition of a stillbirth from 24 weeks to 20, so opening the way for a wider group of people to benefit from the care given to the bereaved, seems both compassionate and sensible, bringing us into line with other western nations and comfortably within the 22-week term set by the World Health Organization.
The only thing that has given me pause here has been well answered by the noble Baroness, and that was the major reservation expressed in the critique of these proposals, especially the need to register stillbirths at a registry office. This, as was pointed out, would place additional burdens on mothers, including those who, for elective reasons, chose to terminate their pregnancies. Before hearing the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I was going to suggest that a light-touch registration could be devised in hospitals and clinics, where appropriate, without the need for a further visit to a registry office—not too difficult a task to achieve or monitor, especially in an age when so many transactions are carried out online. The noble Baroness has come up with an alternative solution based on research from the organisation Saying Goodbye. Whatever approach were to be adopted, I am sure that a way could be found around the pastoral concerns expressed. I commend this Bill to the House.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I am so very glad that my noble friend Lady Benjamin has brought this issue to the Floor of the House. Two things in particular drove me to speak in this debate. Not long ago, I was listening to a programme on the radio about early stillbirth and listening to mothers talking about their feelings of loss and how emotionally debilitating it was to find that there was nothing—nothing to support you emotionally or financially, and nothing to legally mark that loss, except, as has been mentioned, the recent change which enabled one to get a certificate of loss acknowledging your baby’s existence. The loss of a baby is profound at any stage of a pregnancy. Women with this experience were saying things on the radio such as, “It felt like the world moved on in seconds, but I was frozen in grief. Everyone thought it was early, but to me, it was absolutely everything”.
The second thing was that it made me remember my first pregnancy. I started bleeding at about eight weeks and had to take to my bed to rest. I was terrified that I would lose my baby. I did not. I was fortunate, and that baby is now 41. The feeling of potential loss and the fear was absolutely shattering and affected me for the whole of the rest of my pregnancy. That was at just eight weeks.
This much-needed move to 20 weeks will be hugely significant in helping to reduce some of the horror and sadness and in acknowledging and marking the time needed for healing. Many parents experience profound grief after a loss before the current 24 weeks. Current legal or financial definitions can invalidate that experience. The mother who loses her baby at 20 weeks will often endure the same medical processes as one who delivers at 24 weeks. She may labour, she may require surgery and she will certainly require care. Yet the moment she leaves hospital, she finds that there is no recognition of her child—and until recently there was no certificate. There is no access to statutory bereavement leave or financial support. Her grief, while intensely personal, is made all the more isolating by its lack of societal acknowledgement. It is time that we changed that.
Advances in medical imaging mean that many anomalies and most pregnancy complications are now identified at, or shortly after, the 20-week scan. The clinical, emotional and psychological experience of loss at this stage often mirrors that of stillbirth, yet the law continues to draw this sharp line at 24 weeks—a line that was originally based on neonatal viability in the 20th century, not bereavement realities of the 21st.
There is no statutory acknowledgement of the grief that many women and their partners feel at such a loss. That sense is profound. I say again a big thank you to my noble friend Lady Benjamin. Recognising losses from 20 weeks onwards emotionally acknowledges the reality that attachment, planning and love will begin well before viability. Offering support at 20 weeks helps to remove arbitrary emotional hierarchies of grief. Also, many people feel isolated and abandoned because their losses “don’t count” legally. Changing this threshold, as well as mitigating some of the financial stress and enabling some time to recover, also signals that all loss matters, regardless of length of gestation.
By April this year, over 100,000 baby loss certificates had been issued. Miscarriages and losses at 20 to 24 weeks are often treated similarly to stillbirths in clinical practice, so it is totally appropriate that legal recognition and support aligns with what is happening on the ground. Many hospitals and care providers already offer bereavement care, memorials and leave paperwork for losses around 20 weeks. Aligning state support with current clinical norms will create consistency and reduce confusion. Most importantly, parents who lose a baby between 20 and 24 weeks may need time off work, counselling or funeral support, and they are not always eligible for paid leave or benefits. Offering that support at 20 weeks helps avoid financial hardship during what is already a hugely traumatic time.
This touches thousands of families each year yet remains too often hidden. Extending state support from 20 to 24 weeks is not an act of extravagance. It is a modest, meaningful gesture that says, “We see you, and loss matters”. The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate have already raised the issues around termination, whether medical or by choice. I will not go there, but it is covered and it is an important point. I would not support any Bill that made life worse for people who are faced with that decision.
So this is a compassionate Bill targeted to an existing framework and designed to bring equity. I urge this House to consider the emotional truth and the practical necessity of this change and to stand on the side of parents who are simply asking to have their grief recognised, their child acknowledged and their dignity preserved.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in the gap, just to make one point. I have always been very supportive of the work of my noble friend on baby loss certificates. I have supported, for many years, the rights of people who have suffered baby loss, and supported adoptive parents to have better provision in employment rights. Our employment rights on these subjects are way out of date.
My concern is solely about the mandatory nature of the recording and about those people who, for whatever reason, between 20 to 24 weeks, have to make the always difficult choice to have a termination. It is never a decision made lightly. It is often very difficult.
I listened with great care to what my noble friend said, and I was very moved by her understanding that some people who undergo termination late in a pregnancy wish to be included in the recognition she is talking about. I just have a concern that there are some quite vulnerable people who end up in that position for whom the public declaration that they have had to make that decision and go through that might not be advisable, or indeed might be quite dangerous. Therefore, I would like us to be absolutely sure that we are not going to force people for whom it is not the right decision to have to make that public declaration. I take the right reverend Prelate’s point; it does not matter where it happens, it is about the nature of the declaration and the support which follows from it.
I have no doubt that we are moving towards being a much more compassionate and understanding society in this regard. That is partly to do with the fact that medical care for women at that stage of pregnancy is advancing. I do not want to put anything in the way of women or doctors which would in any way inhibit their right to choose the right path as or for an individual woman in that case. So I suggest that we hold back on making this a mandatory scheme until we are absolutely sure that we are not jeopardising those women.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I also speak in the gap, and I apologise for not having been able to put my name down earlier.
I most warmly congratulate my friend—we have worked together for about 30 years—the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, on her powerful, evocative and sensitive presentation of her Bill. I quickly declare my interest as a mother of a consultant gynaecologist, so I am all too aware that a gynaecologist is constantly dealing with the most difficult situations of women having babies they really cannot bring up. Therefore, they look for a termination. Other women are in the most acute heartbreak because they are desperate to have a baby that they do not seem able to produce. So I was struck by the right reverend Prelate’s—he is my Bishop—earlier experience south London, where I also used to work. This is extraordinarily difficult.
I was also the Secretary of State who handled the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. This was such complex and emotional legislation in 1990. It marked the time limit of 24 weeks at the time for the Abortion Act and when it was thought by consensus that a foetus was viable. I am extremely concerned about opening up that debate again. While I certainly support a Second Reading, I feel that in Committee there needs to be careful scrutiny about how the Bill would lie alongside our present arrangements concerning termination.
That was a very important Act. It opened the door to the extraordinary number of IVF babies. They are now saying: every classroom has an IVF baby. Some one in 31 babies is now IVF, which is remarkable. Those babies are desperately wanted, so those involved in a stillbirth have all the greater agony.
I was also involved with the Rosie Barnes Bill, which became the Still-Birth (Definition) Act, although a junior Minister handled it, where Lord Kilmarnock spoke very powerfully in this House.
My particular debt is to a former colleague of this House, Baroness Cumberlege, who did so much on maternal health, infant well-being and infant viability. She was a supporter of midwives and nurses, and her lasting impact on the improvement of services is absolutely one I recognise.
To look at this debate, we have to look at the context. As women we are very aware that generations ago, we would have lost any number of children in childbirth. We would have lost our own lives in childbirth; so many would have experienced the loss of a child. Now the situation is very different. A hundred years ago, for every 10,000 births, there were 800 deaths: now, for every 10,000 births, only 40 deaths. So, the loss of an infant by stillbirth is ever more unusual and all the more painful.
The other thing we see is the changing age at which women are having babies. Whereas many women used to have their babies in their late teens and 20s, now 31% are over 40 when having their children. Therefore, a lot of complications and comorbidities, like diabetes, are more likely to be present. I am certainly one of those who says to young women: get on with it while you can, while you are young and healthy. But many do not have that opportunity. Something like 11% of IVF births are for people between 40 and 45—a remarkable achievement.
I applaud the noble Baroness. I applaud the efforts that have gone in by others, such as, in the last Government, Tim Loughton, the MP for East Worthing and Shoreham— next door to my husband. I want to ask the Minister what she is going to do about implementing the criteria for coroners to become involved. This is really important. This was Part 2 of the Bill.
I must finish quickly—I did not know the rules—by saying I support the Bill, but it needs careful scrutiny before it becomes legislation.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for securing this Private Member’s Bill and setting out its purpose so clearly. It was very hard to listen to the noble Baroness’s heartbreaking personal experience. She is to be applauded, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley said, for seeking to introduce compassion for other grieving parents and to speak up for and support them.
There are truly no words that can capture the heartbreak of losing a baby, no matter when it happens. In our lifetime, most of us will have come across friends or family who have had to experience the devastating loss of a baby. It is deeply personal, and I speak with sincere sympathy and respect for all families and parents who have had to endure such heartbreak, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, set out so beautifully in her own very moving speech. It was really very heartening to listen to the account of the organisation that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has set up to support vulnerable pregnant women in his own parish.
The proposal set out in today’s Bill would amend the definition of stillbirth to apply from 20 weeks into a pregnancy, rather than the current 24 weeks. Although, obviously, it is terribly difficult, and I am wholly in favour of supporting parents who have to undergo the terrible grief of a stillborn baby, if we look more closely at the implications of the proposed change, it could lead to difficult challenges for our healthcare system. It is a difficult area. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service has said that changing the stillbirth definition would present complex challenges for both patients and medical professionals. We must recognise that for patients, changing the definition of a stillbirth would result in leaving women accessing abortion care in an even more vulnerable position. Women accessing abortion care after 20 weeks, but before the 20-week abortion limit, would be required to register the termination as a stillbirth with the registry office. Here, I very much share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Although we must recognise the intentions behind today’s proposal, the complex impacts of the change mean that it is probably not right for it to be delivered through a Private Member’s Bill. If we look more closely at the impact on patients—women and girls who, through lack of understanding, fear of disclosure of their termination, or inability to attend a registry for this purpose without putting themselves at risk of domestic or honour-based abuse—they may find themselves inadvertently committing a criminal offence. We must be alive to the realities faced by these women. Some of the most vulnerable women in our society access abortion services, and it would be wrong to put them at risk in this way.
Under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, there are legal implications for parents, as the Registrar-General may consent to the disclosure of the contents of the stillbirth register. This would mean that confidential records of legal abortion could be disclosed to third parties without their consent, as a matter of public record. For many women, the thought that such personal and private information could be exposed in this way would be profoundly distressing and could have lasting emotional social consequences, beyond the devastating grief they are left to live with.
Parents who have to suffer this inconsolable loss have my deepest sympathy, but given the complexities, any proposed changes must be carefully weighed to ensure that they balance compassion with practical, legal and ethical considerations. The practicality of these implications presents unrealistic complications for these women. For these reasons, there needs to be very careful consideration before we upset the balance that exists, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley explained from her experience as Secretary of State.
So while we remain deeply sympathetic to the parents and families who endure the profound grief of losing a stillborn baby, there remain concerns about the wider practical impact of the Bill’s proposals on the wider healthcare system and on vulnerable women. There would therefore need to be further consideration of such impacts before we could support the Bill.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for introducing the Bill, and I know the importance this House places on ensuring that bereaved parents, regardless of the baby’s gestation, get the support and care they need.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the huge amount she has done in the service of a very personal cause. She has raised awareness of pregnancy loss and campaigned for baby loss certificates, helping women and families to receive better support. I know what strength and courage is needed to speak about issues so near to one’s heart, and I thank all today’s speakers for their contributions about their own and friends’ experiences of treatment and care.
I also congratulate my honourable friend in the other place, Sarah Owen, and the Women and Equalities Committee, for highlighting the gap in current support for those who experience a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Bereaved people need time to recover and grieve, and it is important that they are supported at work as they do so.
We also recognise, as was underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the vital role played by the many charities supporting families who have experienced loss—including Sands, the Miscarriage Association, Birthrights, Mariposa International, Tommy’s and Bliss—in raising awareness and campaigning for the additional care and support that is needed.
Overall, good and steady progress is being made to address the treatment, care and support for women and their families experiencing the trauma of pregnancy loss. I thank noble Lords for recognising this, as well as for highlighting the considerable amount of work that is in progress and still needs to be done. For example, the importance of bereavement leave has been stressed by a number of speakers. This Government have made it clear that we fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for those who have experienced pregnancy loss, in supporting women and families during such a distressing time. Under our flagship Employment Rights Bill, currently in this House, parliamentarians from both sides have spoken strongly on these issues. We look forward to further discussions on the matter as the Bill moves into its later stages. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, again acknowledged this movement forward.
However, I must address the Government’s reservations about this Bill in relation to the proposed definition of stillbirth. The current definition is based on the gestation at which a foetus is considered viable—24 weeks. Sadly, babies born at 20 weeks do not survive: in 2022, 98% of the 305 babies born alive before 22 weeks in England and Wales died in their first week; and in 2020-21, only 5% of babies born at 22 weeks survived.
Changing the definition of stillbirth to 20 weeks would, therefore, remove the link to foetal survival, moving us away from a clinically evidenced position. There is no medical consensus that the age of foetal viability is reduced below 24 weeks. Therefore, this proposal would create an inconsistency with the Abortion Act 1967.
I understand the sentiments and force of the arguments and principles put forward by noble Lords, but I am afraid we cannot support the definition in the Bill. However, as I have stressed, I very much welcome the focus of the debate on the other important ways to support women who experience miscarriage, which is what baby loss before 20 weeks is treated as. In this context, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for highlighting that changing the definition would also allow bereaved parents access to support such as maternity pay and leave.
The care that families receive after the death of their baby can have long-lasting effects. We cannot remove the pain, but we know that poor care can make things worse. Loss matters, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, emphasised. That is why the baby loss certificate is so important and why the Government extended eligibility for the scheme, allowing parents to officially recognise their loss, regardless of how long ago it occurred. The feedback has been incredibly positive and part of the healing process for many women experiencing loss, as noble Baronesses have said, with over 100,000 certificates issued to date, as a lasting memory of their babies. We are also improving bereavement services and making them available seven days a week. We will look closely at the outcomes of Tommy’s graded model of care for miscarriages pilot, which is due to report later this year.
Noble Baronesses have particularly referred to the trauma of pregnancy loss leading to or worsening mental health issues, which is why we have introduced maternal mental health services in all parts of England to provide care for women with mental health difficulties arising from baby loss. As I have stressed, we accept that there is much more to do to improve care for women and families who have experienced loss.
I now turn to address some of the points raised. I will endeavour to answer these, but I hope that the noble Baronesses will forgive me if I have to write to them. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said that, if her Bill were implemented, those having terminations between 20 and 24 weeks would be exempted from registering them as stillbirths. But changing the definition is likely to have other unintended consequences for abortion services and wider impacts; for example, around the disposal of the foetal remains and other issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, pointed to a number of the potential consequences that would occur.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Baronesses mentioned that there is a variation among other nations. We recognise that there is such variation in the definition of a stillbirth and that the UK’s position is not aligned with the World Health Organization. Countries may take a different approach to defining terms such as “stillbirth” and “miscarriage”. Reasons for variation include legal and administrative difficulties and approaches to collecting data.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised support for LGBTQ people. We recognise the complexities of baby loss for people from LGBT and other communities. Personalised care and support plans should be offered to all those accessing maternity services to ensure that care is tailored.
The noble Baroness raised the concerns about the mandatory nature of declarations of abortions and the impact on the most vulnerable individuals, and I certainly understand that concern. She raised an important point about the recording of stillbirths, and I recognise the impact that this can have on the most vulnerable and on their decisions to have an abortion. We very much have regard to this.
In closing, I thank the noble Baronesses—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
I would be particularly grateful if the noble Baroness could come back to me on Part 2 of the 2019 Act, which authorises coroners to become involved in stillbirths.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on that.
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill, and all who participated in this important and moving debate. We must continue to deliver services that acknowledge and support the heartbreak of losing a baby. The Government will work with the noble Baroness and others, endeavouring to support this and to consider how to offer families the care and support they need in all areas of their lives.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue. I also thank the Public Bill Office and the Library for their support and guidance; I am most grateful to them.
I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford for sharing his personal experiences of working with those suffering from baby loss and showing empathy for those parents. That is what we are asking for.
I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for her support; I felt we were kindred spirits as she told the House of her personal experiences and empathy to those who suffered a stillbirth before 24 weeks. It is heartbreaking.
I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lady Bottomley for their brief contributions. My noble friend Lady Barker raised an important point, which I have taken to heart. As I said, however, my Bill is not asking for changes to the age of viability or changes to abortion law. By adding a specific exemption within the Bill, we will exclude termination between 20 and 24 weeks from the requirement of the Bill. I reassure my noble friend that we are going to make sure that people who have elective terminations do not have to register. We understand that some might be vulnerable, so we want to show compassion to their predicament. That is what this Bill is about: showing compassion and consideration.
I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. However, I repeat that precedent has been set by other Acts that there will be exemptions for those who suffer elective termination. I keep repeating that because it is really important. I do not want us to blindly go ahead and forget about other people’s feelings, because we are talking about those physical and mental emotions that need to be considered. Therefore, they will not be cast aside or not thought about in this Bill.
I am deeply grateful to the Minister. I thank her for laying out the Government’s position and vision for making a difference to the care and consideration given to women who have suffered baby loss—in this instance, stillbirth—and for articulating so strongly the Government’s promise and commitment to make a difference to those who suffer baby loss.
It is estimated that between 2% and 4% of baby losses occur between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. The World Health Organization and many leading nations already recognise stillbirth from 20 to 22 weeks, paving the way for change for us in the United Kingdom. My Bill is not calling for something that has not already been adopted by nations around the world. My Bill will be there to help those who have experienced one of the most traumatic experiences anyone could ever go through: the loss of a child. It simply wishes to extend support by a mere four weeks. Those who elect termination will be protected.
This Bill is asking government to show true compassion to bereaved parents and families across the country. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is happy to work closely with me and the Saying Goodbye charity on the issue to bring solace and consideration into the lives of those who need it. I am more than happy to work together to make changes. I will accept a compromise; that is what I am here for. I passionately commend this Bill to the House.
Imprisonment for Public Protection (Re-sentencing) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the establishment of an expert advisory committee without the requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out a resentencing exercise.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
With noble Lords’ indulgence, I wish to open this debate by saying that IPP—imprisonment for public protection—is as big a scandal as the Post Office and the infected blood scandal, as bad as they are. Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives, and hundreds more are being driven to insanity by this no hope, never-ending sentence. The only difference with IPP is that not enough people know about it, and that has to change.
Now, speaking directly to everyone serving an IPP sentence, my message, quite simply, is: do not give up hope. You have more supporters here than you realise, and there are many Members in this House and the other place who will not rest until we have justice for everyone suffering these appalling torture sentences, but please understand that it is the Government who ultimately have the power to end this injustice. Sadly, my Bill by itself will not bring you justice, but it can help to build pressure on the Government to do the right thing and to build public awareness of this industrial-scale miscarriage of justice. Please, do not have false hope about this Bill. Have hope, but not false hope. That is my aim here today.
By debating these amendments today, especially this first group of amendments, which probe the Government’s position, we can hold Ministers to account and expose the lack of logic behind their refusal to consider resentencing seriously and creatively. Each of these amendments restricts resentencing to a particular cohort or, in the case of one in my name, restricts resentencing entirely by committing the Government to establishing an expert committee to advise on resentencing. To be clear, this is not because I do not want to see resentencing happen at all. Of course I do. That is what the whole Bill is about but, with the Government resisting resentencing, these amendments allow us to focus on the specific objections. Why are they against forming an expert committee? Why are they against resentencing those who have suffered the greatest injustice?
I put my name to all the amendments in this group because I genuinely believe that each asks legitimate and reasonable questions of the Government. Amendment 2 is also in my name. It would restrict resentencing to those already released by the Parole Board and living on licence in the community. Did I table this amendment because I believe they are the only ones who should be resentenced? Of course not. I did so, as I said, to probe the Government’s position and to test the faulty logic. If fears around public protection are all that stands in the way of full resentencing, what could be the objection to starting with those already released? This group, who have, by definition, been deemed safe for release by the Parole Board and the Government are still living the nightmare of unexpected and immediate recall, often for a minor breach of licence, or sometimes merely on allegation of an offence, and the Minister knows this.
I have received so many examples from prisoners who have been recalled after a malicious allegation with no further action taken by the police, yet back inside they go to serve another indeterminate prison term along with those established sentences that they had. Even when no further action has been taken, people still face a year or more in jail, waiting for their next Parole Board hearing—if they are lucky. This is clearly not justice. There is no credible reason not to resentence these people already cleared by the Parole Board.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, on the tenacity he has shown in continuing the fight against the injustice of the IPP sentence. I hope the Minister will understand that the amendments in this group are intended to be helpful, in that they offer the Government a range of possibilities and flexibilities in the application of resentencing in the event that they cannot bring themselves—and it is clear that they cannot—to endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee in the other place in 2022 that all prisoners subject to this sentence should be resentenced and that the solution to the problem lies in that.
That is certainly the character of Amendments 11 and 12 in my name. They make a point that was often made by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who was so passionate about this injustice—namely, that in July 2008 there were significant reforms, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, to the IPP regime in England and Wales through the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, and those changes aimed to address the growing concerns about the sentence. The changes were that a seriousness threshold was introduced, and from that date an offender could receive an IPP sentence only if the offence they were being sentenced for was serious enough to justify a determinate sentence of at least four years. Before that change, there had been occasions, some referred to in Parliament—some are anecdotal because the names are not always known—of people with implied determinate sentences as low as 28 days who had been given IPP sentences. From this point on, four years was the seriousness test, and that was a major shift.
The reforms also gave greater discretion to judges, allowing them to do their job properly—that is, sentencing somebody according to their individual deserts, which is the purpose of the sentencing regime. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, the original Act, had not given judges that discretion; it said that in the cases of those qualifying for IPP sentencing they must assume that there is a risk unless the court considered that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was not a risk. Those are very strong words. “Must” and “unreasonable” set a very high bar, effectively removing judicial discretion in determining the sentence. Defendants sentenced under that provision were denied what should have been their right to an individually appropriate sentence.
The key point, as the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has said, is that the changes made in 2005 came into effect only in July 2008 and there was no attempt to make them retrospective to those who had been sentenced between 2005 and 2008. Many of those people are still subject to the sentence. Many of them are in prison and many have never been released. They are among the 1,000 or so IPP prisoners who have never been released to date. They continue to suffer from an injustice of exceptional gravity. They are serving a sentence that, as recognised in 2008, was passed pursuant to too wide a seriousness threshold by a judiciary whose discretion Parliament had so fettered as to prevent it saving defendants from unjustifiable severity.
There are two amendments, Amendments 11 and 12, because one is required for IPP sentences and the other for DPP sentences—the sentences imposed on those under 18, as the noble Lord explained—because that is the way in which the legislation is drafted.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for all that he has done, is doing and, I am sure, will continue to do to try to remedy the kind of injustice that he has outlined.
Before I turn to the options put before us, I would like to say something about that injustice. It is largely common ground, I think, that the imposition of this sentence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was a mistake. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for acknowledging that mistake. However, what we have failed to do—herein lies the real perpetuation of the injustice—is deal with those who are still subject to that sentence. I am sure it is that which caused Members of your Lordships’ House, in particular the late Lord Judge, the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, to describe this as a stain on the character of British justice—which it is. It is a very serious matter that we are not taking practical steps to deal with injustice. As the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, said, we did it in respect of the Post Office, but, in my view, there are a lot of hang-ups and misconceptions that are preventing the doing of justice in this case.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his continued campaign in this area. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Moylan for their remarks in support of the campaign and the general thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, discussed.
It is very tempting in Committee on a short Bill such as this to want to rehearse the Second Reading debate. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, who analysed the problems before us with a forensic stiletto, I tend to come from the blunderbuss school of argument. I would prefer to give this piece of injustice a thorough whacking, but, unfortunately, that would not be helpful; it would be repetitive and would probably not move the Government.
Because I am familiar with the Justice Ministers on the Front Bench, I know that they both find themselves in a position in which they would rather not be. They did not invent the IPP and are not responsible for its progress since 2003. I suspect that they heartily wish they were dealing with something else—but they are not, and they have to deal with this, so here we all are.
I will make one or two brief points. You could not put a cigarette paper between me and the noble and learned Lord in relation to the remarks he just made. The IPP sentence is uncontroversially unjust. It is also uncontroversial to say that, within the sentence as a whole, there are elements that aggravate that injustice. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the absurdities of the recall regime—the monstrous consequence of a slight breach in a recall or the terms of a licence—can lead to a recall in relation to something that has nothing whatever to do with the initial offence. In addition, there is the inability of the state properly to police the return of people to imprisonment without a separate and new trial in relation to wholly different allegations.
All those things ought to stick in our craws, and I think they probably do. However, we feel bound up in the bureaucracy and the sheer inability to move things along, because there are so many other moving parts in the world of public policy. One is never able to clear a path through to achieve what we all want to do: to end every consequence of the IPP regime, consequences which were to some extent ameliorated by the 2008 changes and by the abolition of the sentence in 2012. None the less, we are still here having these debates—wringing our hands and having anguished discussions—when we all know what we need to do.
I will do my best to return to the amendments and then I will stop talking. An expert committee is fine, but we have several hundred experts—they are called judges. It seems to me that by sitting either singly or in batches of two or three, they could form lots of expert committees to break the back of this problem.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I will add just a line or two to all the statements so far. I immensely commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for having the guts and fearsomeness of argument, the persistence and, thank goodness, the irritation to keep going and pushing this as far as we reasonably and possibly can—and must.
We will hear, as we have already, essentially Second Reading re-runs, because we are all just fed up and angry. We know, as the Minister knows, that in his file sit rather wishy-washy arguments about public protection which just do not stack up. One of the reasons they do not is that any assessment of those still languishing in prison will show that, of the 1,000 plus on IPP sentences, looking at their original time of sentence, 80% of them were for non-violent offences. In which case, based on accurate judicial knowledge of those individuals, we cannot say that they pose a public risk. Because they have never been let out, we have no evidence to prove that they will behave otherwise. When they did go to courts for sentencing, they were not there for violent actions; in which case, let them out, for goodness’ sake.
Do not continue to use the argument that there is a public protection issue; that is nonsense. It is simply a very nice Civil Service and Secretary of State way to say that we do not want to deal with it, because it keeps the public smiling. Ministers know that what they are really doing is perpetuating a gross, unacceptable injustice and acts of torture that are destroying individuals’ lives and sending them to suicide and desecration, and which are a gross stain on what we call justice or anything to do with it. I beg Ministers to take those pages out, hand them back to civil servants and say, “Meet some real prisoners”.
I continue to receive information—three times in the last month—directly from prisoners who are on IPP sentences who have heard nothing of the provisions of last year’s legislation. This is even though all sorts of messages went out from the Ministry of Justice last year and this year to inform governors that they should make sure prisoners know about the changes in the regulations and legislation, and that reconsideration of their position is possible. They have heard nothing. Why? Some say that frankly, the system does not believe it is going to work. There is also too much bureaucracy in it.
When we look at the range of amendments before us, both the probing ones but also, if necessary, the voting ones, what we are really seeing is all of us finding ways to hedge around this untidy mess. It is an untidy mess because the simplicity of accepting that a wrong has been consistently done means that there is a more straightforward way for a right to be consistently done. Give dignity to the individuals involved, accepting, as in the group meeting the Minister mentioned, that there may well be a few hundred who are simply so mentally distressed that they cannot participate in the process, they have lost hope altogether, they feel there is no point to their reassessment and they almost want to hang back on it all. That is a tragedy; it is a loss of human dignity and a destruction of their souls.
For those few hundred, we need to find a different way to support their mental recovery, as one of the amendments does, but when it comes to the majority, we are begging the Minister not to swallow the argument that this is all about public protection. Those of us who work in prisons week in, week out, know very well that it is not.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to contribute to this debate as I did at Second Reading, not that I have the expertise on the justice system that other participants have. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for championing the Bill. I agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, just said, that this is an injustice amounting to torture. The ball is being kicked down the road in a completely unacceptable fashion. There is a way out—there are several ways out, actually—and I will come later to the Howard League proposals that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, mentioned.
I principally think that insofar as there is risk, it may be no more than would be taken in the release of prisoners under a normal regime. It has, however, become a great concern of the Government that they could get blamed if people are released from IPP sentences and go on to commit other offences. Blame already attaches when other prisoners are released, but there is a particular fixation on this and I think we have to give the Government the courage, on a cross-party basis, to tackle this.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the guts of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who, having been the instigator of the original regime, has had the guts to admit that it was the wrong thing to do. We had the report from the Justice Select Committee in the other place, which was cross party. The former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk repeated the conclusion of our late colleague and former Supreme Court justice Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood about the IPP system being a stain on our justice system. In one of her first speeches in the other place last July, during a debate about IPP, the present Lord Chancellor said,
“The situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern … We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/7/24; col. 180.]
Well, that was already almost a year ago.
Concern has been expressed across the political spectrum; the Government should take that into account and be ready to grasp the nettle. It has taken decades for there to be recognition of injustice in other sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Woodley, talked about the Post Office Horizon scandal, and we had the infected blood scandal and several others. In this country, we seem to be very bad at righting wrongs with dispatch.
In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I would like to give the IPP system a huge whack, because it is a scandal and an outrage. I refer to the report that was published a couple of weeks ago by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The league had an expert committee—very expert, not least because it was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. In his foreword to the report, he said:
“History shows that governments invariably find it difficult to remedy state wrongs; this is even more so when those subject to the injustice have broken the law. Successive governments have now recognised that the IPP sentence was a mistake. It is long overdue for those whose lives continue to be blighted by this sentence to be released from its clutches”.
There are six recommendations in the report. I hope and believe that the Minister has read it. I am glad to see that he is nodding. On these Benches and others, we place great hopes in the sense and experience of the Minister in this area.
The Bill is about resentencing. The amendments tabled today are modifications to the original proposals, but the Howard League is proposing another way. I do not want to detract from resentencing. We all wanted to see resentencing, but for reasons which passeth all understanding, this Government are apparently no more willing—unless the Minister is going to surprise us out of our skins—to accept resentencing. I hope that he can give us some encouragement that he is willing to look at another scheme, such as that put forward by the Howard League, which is to have what it calls a two-year conditional release. This would modify the current approach of the Parole Board, which requires the board to decide whether it is necessary for the protection of the public for the individual to be detained.
The proposal in the report is that in IPP cases, the Parole Board should be asked to set a date for when the person will be released, within a two-year window, and what is required to achieve that safely. This would give the certainty of a release date, alleviating the significant mental distress of those serving the sentence, increase the likelihood of re-engagement for those who have lost confidence in the system, for reasons we can all understand, and facilitate the safe and speedy release of those who are stuck in prison on IPP sentences. There are other suggestions in the report which I do not wish to take up time talking about, but the main one is a reform to the recall system, the operation of which is very bad.
I do hope that if the Minister cannot help us on resentencing today, he can give us a chink of light to end this scandalous, outrageous injustice and is willing to say that within a short time the Government will seize this issue and give hope to people, their families and friends, and all of us who hate to see this injustice and the hopelessness that goes with it. I am preaching to the converted with these sentiments, I believe: what we need now is a practical scheme to get out of this terrible situation.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for giving us the opportunity to debate this injustice. We both serve on a committee with the justice unions, as they are called. I recently succeeded the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as the Conservative vice-president of this APPG, because the noble Earl is being cast into outer darkness and has decided to go quietly and hand over to me, rather than wait to be sacked.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because one notices in this APPG that no one is really interested if the justice unions can be kept down and kept quiet—that is it. One looks at the unions in the justice industry—prison officers, for instance—and sees enormous problems that the Government are not addressing seriously. I wish they would.
As for the Bill, one of the weaknesses in this country is that you can get swept away, and nothing sounds quite as good as imprisonment for public protection: “Yes, we’ll lock them up and throw away the key”. That really was how this came in; the Government wished to show that they were prepared to be tough with people, without much mention of why. I accept, as one of the Ministers said to me, that some of the people who are detained for public protection probably should not be let out, but that decision should be made by a tribunal or group of people who can judge the mental state of the people in prison for public protection. It should not be allowed just to drift on and on.
There are lots of amendments to the Bill, and I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, has signed them all. I can see that he is trying to find a solution and he accepts that there may be problems in finding a precise way forward, but I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government are prepared to give this a fair wind. The most important thing is that they acknowledge that there has been a severe miscarriage of justice that needs putting right. That would be an extremely good start.
I will mention another word that has not been mentioned: class. These people are not middle-class people. When I was in the European Parliament, I was one of the founders of its human rights sub-committee and we went all over the place. We went to places such as the Czech Republic, as it then was, and to unfashionable places where the British Government were very concerned about human rights, such as Nicaragua. I had a very enjoyable time in Nicaragua visiting its prisons. But the key thing I noticed was that, certainly in eastern Europe, most prisoners were forgotten because they were ordinary people. They had no universities behind them nor people campaigning for them. They were basically working-class people who had fallen foul of the system.
Under the very authoritarian regimes that existed, particularly in eastern Europe, many of these people were locked up, and for many of them it was an indeterminate sentence. The gulag was an indeterminate sentence. Most of the people in the gulag were working-class. They were not intellectuals. The few that were, such as Sharansky and Daniel, had big campaigns mounted for them. I helped with those campaigns, but the fact of the matter is that many of the prisoners, as Gorbachev found when he came to power and started overhauling the system, were there by accident. They should not have been there at all. They had no advocates, they had no people behind them—maybe a partner 1,000 miles away across Russia, but no organised campaigns. That is the case with many of these people. I wonder how many of the 1,000 know each other, talk to each other and are able to swap notes and see how they might get out of the situation that they are in.
I am not going to deal with individual amendments, but they all point in the same direction. They are a genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and the colleagues who have tabled them to move the matter forward. This House is unique, in a way. I do not think you would have a debate like this in the Commons because there are more vested interests down there, but here we can be dispassionate. One of the things I am saying we need to be dispassionate about is the fact that there has been a massive miscarriage of justice and that now has to be put right. It is up to this Government, just as it was to the previous Government. I fully support what Alex Chalk was trying to do. He was my son’s MP. My son was one of the few people who voted for him, but he did not hold his seat. He was a good Justice Minister, as was as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who I knew when he was in that job. We have to move things forward. Somehow Ministers have to get hold of the Civil Service and say, “This is a blot on the British record for human rights”.
Of course, some people should not be released, but their cases should be reviewed, and there should be some form of appeal and some form of sentence. If they are not to be released, the sentence should be subject to review. I suspect a number of them have become institutionalised, and that a number of them were mentally ill before they ended up in prison, but our job as a public body is to make it possible for the justice system to be seen to be fair. My concern is that of these 1,000 people in prison today, probably 700 or 800 of them have no family, friends or social network, and that when they are let out they are going to need a lot of support to adjust back into the community.
This is the beginning of a big challenge. I hope our Ministers will be able to take it on board and solve this blot on our justice system.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, many of the points that I was going to make today have already been made far more eloquently than I could have made them, so I will not detain the Committee for very long. I have just two short points.
First, I have always been quite impressed with the Government’s argument that they are responsible for public protection, that they therefore cannot release people who are assessed to be a risk to the public and that any resentencing exercise would just take us around in circles because it would have to incorporate a safety assessment and we would end up back where we are today. But I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said and the statistic that 80% of IPPs in prison are there when their index offence was non-violent—I think I heard that correctly. That is an astonishing thing. I have learned something. If that is the case, how does the public protection argument stack up? Surely there is some answer to it if these people were originally convicted of non-violent offences.
Secondly, if the Government are nevertheless resolute that they do not want a resentencing exercise, I strongly commend the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because the Bill and the amendments show how diverse the IPP population is. That is important, because this should affect the way the Parole Board assesses risk and the way that the Probation Service considers whether to recall.
To take just three categories illustrated by the amendments, first, there are those who have been previously released, who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, are in a completely different category from those who have not. They have been assessed on a previous occasion to be safe to release. If they have been recalled, the fact that they have been previously released, and therefore considered safe, means that the burden and standard of proof on the Prison and Probation Service should be very high to show that they are still dangerous at their next review.
The second category is those who were juveniles when they committed their offences. The courts have been clear that young people are far more likely to rehabilitate quickly and are more open to it. For example, in the case of tariffs and detention during His Majesty’s pleasure, the courts have said that in the case of juveniles, their tariffs need to be reviewed much more regularly.
Thirdly and finally, there is the category of those who are mentally ill. We know from expert psychological evidence—in the third report to the Justice Committee—that the effect of the IPP sentence itself is a major factor in the mental health of IPP prisoners. The report said that
“someone may be deemed too high risk to be released based on their current mental health presentation, rather than based on their original offence.”
If that is the case, consideration should be given to transferring these prisoners to a more suitable environment than prison for treating them appropriately.
Whatever the Government’s decision on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, I very much hope that it will lead to further progress in reducing the IPP and DPP prison population.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, looking around the Committee at the legal expertise present, I feel rather underqualified. However, I worked as a trustee for the Koestler Arts trust for some years, and that leads me to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Hastings that what people in prison need to achieve rehabilitation—which I know that the Government want—is hope. What has happened as a result of IPP is that hope has been replaced by uncertainty and inequality. We clearly have to put that right.
The other reason that I wanted to speak today was that the late and learned Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Simon, was a close friend of mine. He made such an impassioned speech from these Benches that it made me feel that I too had to take up this cause because IPP, as we have heard, has resulted in enormous injustice. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that that figure—that 80% are non-violent—is terrifying. I say to noble Lords on the Front Bench, who are distinguished in the law themselves, that if they could—and I really imagine that they will want to—shed some light on this, to seek by some way light at the end of the tunnel, that would be welcomed across the House.
I will not go on, because it has all been said and this is not the time to do so, but I say to noble Lords: please try to find a way forward here.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I too begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for his determination on and commitment to this matter, both today and on several previous occasions.
The injustice of the IPP sentence, and its effects, which continue, are not in dispute. As my noble friend Lord Balfe said, it is a miscarriage of justice, and we are dealing here with an injustice. I will just take a moment to recognise the work that he did to try to rectify another injustice: that of the refuseniks in the former Soviet Union. A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, who, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, showed guts in the work he did. The changes that he put in place, to an extent, ameliorated the situation.
Perhaps unlike some Members of the Committee, I note that this is not Second Reading, so perhaps I will be forgiven for not repeating all the points I made then. The Committee should be under no illusion about my position on IPP, which I hope I have made clear on a number of occasions. As my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier said, it is up to us on the Front Benches, so to speak, to try to sort it out, although the Minister has a singular advantage over me, in that he is in government and I am not. But he can take it from me that we will work constructively with him on this issue and we will continue to discuss it, as we have on previous occasions. To paraphrase a famous rabbinic phrase, even if we cannot finish the work, we none the less have an obligation to do what we can to progress it and make things better.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Woodley and to every Peer who has brought such sustained focus to the imprisonment for public protection sentence. Their passion and the compassion of the families, campaigners and practitioners have quite rightly kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Member’s Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy it proposes.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who takes over the responsibilities from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hear the mood of the Committee in wanting to move forward, and quickly. I share this sentiment, but we do not think that resentencing is the right way to move this forward.
Today I want to be absolutely clear. My priority is to address the IPP legacy safely, fairly and in a way that endures. Since taking office, I have met many IPP prisoners and their families. I have listened to victims and front-line staff, chaired round tables and campaign groups and walked the landings with governors and probation leaders. Every conversation has strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every available operational lever. Even yesterday I met an IPP prisoner at HMP Eastwood Park who has her parole hearing today.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on communication. It is absolutely vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made. Yesterday I was pleased to see multiple copies of Inside Time around the prison, but I will take that back to the department and consider how we can do more.
We are already seeing what determined practical action we can achieve. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 automatically ended the licence for 1,742 people, with hundreds more cases now moving through the Parole Board on an accelerated timetable. That is real progress: people rebuilding their lives, victims protected and the public kept safe.
Let us stand back and look at the wider trajectory. The total IPP prison population has fallen from 5,040 in 2015 to 2,544 today, with the unreleased cohort down to 1,012. Meanwhile, rigorous supervision keeps risks low. Fewer than 0.5% of all offenders under statutory supervision were convicted of a serious further offence last year. Those figures show we can shrink the cohort while maintaining the confidence and safety of victims.
We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second annual report on the IPP sentence, alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets: 90% of IPP prisoners in the right prison for their needs by December, for example, and sharper deadlines for parole and termination reports. It hard-wires accountability at every level. I know that Peers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and that the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform have serious reservations about the Bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved without pursuing what is proposed in the Bill.
We have a plan, and it is working. Early results from that plan are encouraging. In 2024, 602 recalled IPP prisoners were safely re-released—the highest figure ever recorded. While recalls fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly there is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population, the Parole Board continues to release around 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm on risk and ambitious on progression, is exactly what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan shoulder to shoulder with colleagues across both Houses, with campaign groups and, crucially, with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every control, treatment and resettlement lever until each individual who can be safely released is safely released and then supported to stay out.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we are carefully considering the recommendations in the Howard League report. We are exploring in particular the ways to improve recall decisions and speed up post-recall review processes.
While I cannot back a resentencing exercise that would short-circuit the Parole Board’s vital public protection role, I will champion relentless evidence-based progress. Let us channel the energy of the Bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will, with the House’s continued challenge and support, allow many more IPP offenders to complete their sentence and move on with their lives.
I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for Amendment 1 on the creation of an expert advisory committee, which would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may, rather than must, carry out. I understand the desire to provide the Lord Chancellor with advice on this matter.
However, as raised at Second Reading, my concern remains that the creation of an expert advisory committee risks giving false hope to those serving the IPP sentence, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement its recommendations. This is only confirmed in my regular meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and a wide range of respected organisations have considered the issue of resentencing, yet there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise in a way that would not involve releasing offenders the Parole Board has determined pose too great a risk to the public.
I recognise the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, to address this issue by limiting a resentencing exercise to those currently in the community in Amendment 2. This would avoid the issue of prisoners being released without the Parole Board’s direction that the release test is met.
I respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which means they will have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release, or two for those sentenced when under 18, rather than 10. They also know that even if their licence is not terminated at this point, it will be terminated automatically if they are not recalled in the subsequent two-year period. Those in the community have, of course, met the Parole Board’s release test, but only on the basis that they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place in the form of licence conditions.
This amendment would remove those licence conditions much earlier—potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been in prison for a significant period of time should have the resettlement support from the Probation Service, and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison. I agree with the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Garnier, that licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board.
Amendment 3 would restrict the resentencing exercise to IPP offenders who are 10 years over their tariff, both in custody and in the community. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for this amendment. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their tariff has expired.
Resentencing IPP prisoners who have served 10 years over their tariff would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. For this cohort in particular, the independent Parole Board will have repeatedly determined—at least every two years since the offender reached the end of their tariff—that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not met the statutory release test. For that reason, all those serving the IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community, they would have been recently released either for the first time or after being recalled. They need continued oversight to manage their risk and support from the Probation Service to progress them towards licence termination.
Amendment 10 would restrict a resentencing exercise to those serving a detention for public protection—DPP—sentence. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant force for change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges faced by those serving a DPP sentence. That is why those in the community now have their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board two years after their initial release and will therefore also have their licence terminated automatically a year earlier than those on the IPP sentence, if the Parole Board does not terminate it at the end of the qualifying period. There are now fewer than 30 individuals serving DPP sentences in the community and currently fewer than 100 in custody.
The IPP action plan includes a specific focus on DPP offenders, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be comforted that there are more frequent reviews by psychology services and that the Parole Board prioritises listing these cases for consideration. However, our position remains that, as with those serving an IPP, those serving a DPP sentence should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. This is the only way we can ensure that the public and victims are best protected.
Finally in this group, Amendments 11 and 12 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whom I thank for these amendments and for his thoughtful contributions to our IPP round tables, relate to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July 2008. The sentence was amended to give judges greater discretion over its use and to limit it to offenders who received at least a two-year tariff. Again, I recognise the purpose behind the amendments, but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2008 cohort irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of their risk. Our view remains that IPP prisoners should be released only once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The Government therefore cannot support these amendments, or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders, for the reasons I have set out.
These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individuals serving the IPP sentence. Unfortunately, they do not address the Government’s public protection concerns and would put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and, with the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act, there is already a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way.
The changes implemented are expected to reduce the number of people serving IPP sentences in the community by around two-thirds. I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and, as I have set out, I believe the IPP action is the best way to achieve this.
To conclude, I should like to give two final examples of the progress made to support the IPP population. First, the approved premises pilot, which has recently concluded, extended the time for which IPP offenders could remain in an AP from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in four APs. At one, 23 out of 26 men moved on successfully after their placement ended. We also saw a 7% decrease in recalls at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that pre-release work, combined with training for staff and extra support, has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community. If we can successfully replicate this across the approved premises estate, the impact could be significant.
Secondly, we are taking action to enable swift re-release following recall where it is safe and appropriate to do so. This summer, we will see the publication of the progression panel policy framework, which will ensure that a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender who is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the Risk Assessed Recall Review process, which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early re-release. These panels also help prisoners prepare for release, which aids their resettlement into the community. Measures such as these will help individuals progress through their sentence towards having it terminated.
I hope noble Lords are reassured by some of the updates that I have provided today. I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can, as hard as I can, to support IPP prisoners so that they can get out of prison and stay out.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. I was very pleased to forewarn him of my speech, to give him more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very serious matter, especially bearing in mind the hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of this debate.
I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the Minister’s answer, because it is very much more of the same that he has given us on two other occasions: he does not wish resentencing to be part of the move forward. I still really struggle to turn around and understand how the Minister cannot convince himself that it is the right thing to do for those groups of individuals that I have pointed out today—colleagues have supported me—who really do not create any sort of risk to the public. Those people who are already out on probation and have been released by the Parole Board are a perfect example, never mind the kids and others.
Nevertheless, all we can do is our best to encourage a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. This Minister is genuine, he is honest and he is doing as much as he feels he can to give hope and support to this victimised group of more than 3,000 individuals. I sincerely hope his words will lead to even more actions than have been done today as he moves away from the Chamber.
But it is a bit of a struggle when, only a week ago, we saw an individual who was finally released out into the community but was arrested within 24 hours and sent back into prison again—and released again and sent back into prison again. Or we might end up with a guy who is now mentally unstable, created by the system, and who has been trying to get out of prison. With your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution, only to find that not long thereafter he is sent straight back into the same prison, which creates the same mental instability. It does not work and, no matter what the Minister says, it certainly has not given us the answers to the hundreds of problems associated with IPP sentences.
I take this opportunity to thank all my colleagues for their contributions. I am proud of each and every one of them. Their contributions were fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well informed, and I thank them on behalf of all those prisoners for what they have said and what they are trying to do. There is no doubt that we have got our message across but, in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Woodley
“(5) A Crown Court designated by the Lord Chancellor must re-sentence the person serving the IPP sentence in relation to the original offence or offences, and any associated offences.(6) The re-sentencing court must not impose a sentence more severe than the notional determinate sentence upon the basis of which the tariff was specified as needing to be served before an application for early release might be made.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure those serving IPP cannot be resentenced more severely than the notional determinate sentence upon which the minimum term was based. Confirmation of IPP is preserved for those falling into the category specified in subsection (6A), added by another amendment in the name of Lord Woodley, to ensure public safety.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, this is quite challenging because this group of amendments was designed as a voting group, but I have been informed that there are not enough people in the House, so we will not be taking a vote on them. That is what I was informed of a few minutes ago, which somewhat cuts the legs from under me, to be quite honest. I do not want to waffle on about all the things that we have been talking about with the hope, belief and view that we were going to vote on them, so, with that in mind, and with the greatest reluctance—and I really mean that—I will be withdrawing this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be with your Lordships at Second Reading, but I read the excellent contributions in Hansard. That, as well as listening today, confirmed that, like everyone else, I want to commend the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, for this Private Member’s Bill. It has done a huge amount, yet once more, to raise the issue. The noble Lord is one of those thorn-in-the-side type of people—you know, the awkward squad—and that is the greatest compliment I can give him, because I think that is how things change.
Important issues have already been raised. I did not speak on the first group for time purposes, so I will bring some of it forward. The noble Lord’s approach to this resentencing exercise is refreshing, because he has offered to do whatever he can to ensure that it is not turned into, as it is too often caricatured, some chaotic mess with inadequate oversight. Instead, through all these amendments, we are looking to use whatever mechanisms we can to convert these never-ending IPP sentences into regular, normal, determinate sentences with an end in sight. That means we are prepared to make compromises and look at all options—nothing is off the table. In that spirit, rather than treating all IPP prisoners as an undifferentiated blob, I am glad to see that today’s amendments try to tackle the different cohorts within the IPP population and work out how best to deal with each group reasonably, and maybe differently, to edge towards justice.
The focus of my Amendment 7 is IPP prisoners suffering mental illness, giving the resentencing court the power to continue incarceration if someone still presents a risk to the public, as, due to mental disorder, they may be dangerous. This would, in effect, replace an IPP sentence with a secure hospital order, and would be a backstop safeguard for the Government to use in dealing with one difficult group of IPP-ers.
One key aspect of the context here—we have heard this again and again from the Front Benches on both sides of the House—is that, in explaining his resistance to resentencing, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, stressed that
“the first priority and responsibility of any Government is to protect the public”—[Official Report, 15/11/24; col. 2044.]
and that, therefore, the focus will always continue to be on public safety. I am not convinced that that is not too crude a measure of the Government’s main priority—always to protect the public—but, regardless, it seems that the MoJ is fixated on and perhaps even paralysed by the notion of dangerousness and IPPs. I have never been convinced by the argument that IPPs are en masse a distinct group of offenders who are especially dangerous—much more so than other prisoners on determinate sentences for far more heinous crimes, who are often released into the community at their sentence end or are let out on early release to solve the state’s prison crisis.
I want to take this chance to cite a letter that I received from one IPP prisoner, in which he talked of his frustration at seeing early-release prisoners walking out every day, laughing and joking having told prison officers to shove their sentence plan, boasting about how they are going to earn 100 times more than prison officers by selling class-A drugs, and having had adjudications for offences relating to alcohol, phones, drugs, violence and cell destruction all wiped clean—yet they still get an early release. My correspondent pointed out that IPPs are almost choirboys in comparison, but they are left to rot.
However, I concede that one risk factor makes hundreds of IPP prisoners not choirboys: the very nature of the IPP sentence is so psychologically toxic that it has itself damaged prisoners’ mental health and cause problematic behaviour. This theme has been well rehearsed in all our debates in this Chamber and is evidenced in all the literature. As we know, the despair and sense of hopelessness associated with this sentence contributes to making some IPP prisoners ill; we know about the appalling self-harm and suicide numbers. What is more, ill IPP prisoners have a double whammy: they are often wary of disclosing a decline in their mental health to prison staff in case it could knock back a parole hearing. So the IPP regime contributes to untreated illness, with no intervention to stop deterioration, and that creates even more risky behaviour.
The irony is that the prisoners are arguably becoming less safe to release precisely because they are being held indefinitely, which creates so much pent up anger and frustration, and loss of agency, with no hope. That potent mix is leading to instability, people lashing out and disengagement, all of which are barriers to progressing release. It also means that, in the context of this Bill, a percentage of IPP prisoners could be too ill to be considered for resentencing.
This is partly because prisons are not the right location to deal with mental illness. As the Minister knows, the Government have agreed that prison is not the right setting for prisoners who are ill; he knows this because it was an important element of the Mental Health Bill that passed through the Lords, declaring that prisons should not be treated as places of safety. I moved amendments on that issue, with a focus on IPP prisoners, in Committee and on Report.
My amendment today follows up on that discussion. It acknowledges that, given that the punishment part of the sentence of an IPP-er has long since been discharged, where there are still concerns about risk and dangerousness because of mental health challenges, a mental health setting is more appropriate than prison. This would allow the Sentencing Council to use hospital orders to ensure that the public protection aspect of such concerns is dealt with appropriately, while also making sure that the prisoner is in the right setting. Where someone has apparently become not safe enough to release because of an illness that the state has helped to induce, this seems to me to be a reasonable and elegant solution.
In this way, IPP-sentenced individuals can access targeted help for their distress and have their deterioration and behaviour clinically managed. This can allow progression via specially designed therapeutic and pharmacological in-patient care, in a psychiatric setting that can, we hope, build up and help the recovery of ill individuals with dignity.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I remind the noble Baroness that the advisory speaking limit for this debate is 10 minutes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry. The status quo position is that, when Mr Thomas becomes well and stable in hospital, he will be returned to the prison as an IPP-er. That seems unconscionable. All this amendment does is suggest that people are referred when they are mentally ill to a hospital and that the hospital then uses a clinical assessment to decide when they are well. When they are well, they are not dangerous and can be released. That can be part of the resentencing procedure.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious of the time. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has put her finger on a problem that the Government have not properly faced but which they will have to face soon: the commendable action plan they have been pursuing with vigour will not reach a large number of prisoners who have not been released before, because, for the action plan to work at the individual level, the individual has to engage successfully with the processes of the Parole Board. We know now that, of the 1,000 or so prisoners who have never been released, a significant number no longer have the mental capacity to do that. Those are the people to whom the noble Baroness draws attention.
I wish to add to that group a further, possibly overlapping, group of prisoners, who may have mental capacity but refuse to engage with the process because of understandable disillusionment arising from their experience of the process in the past. These people will not be addressed by an action plan that requires that successful engagement. The Government have to come up with something else, because at the moment they have nothing for them; the alternative is that they simply stay in prison until they die. If not today, because we are coming to a close, then on an occasion not too far in the future, I think the House would like to hear what the Government propose to do for these people.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I wanted to participate in this debate principally to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introduction. Throughout the stages of the Bill, he has been clear and concise about the need for this legislation, and his contribution today was magnificent.
All the speeches have been clear about the total injustice of the situation in which we find ourselves. I have little doubt that the views are shared by the Members on the Front Bench. The two issues that I wanted to raise—first, the mental health aspects of the problem and, secondly, the fact that we can no longer rely on people to manoeuvre through this system under their own power—have been powerfully addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, so I will not repeat them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will address them in his reply.
I emphasise to my noble friend the Minister that he has, in effect, said—he will perhaps tell me if I am wrong—that we do not need resentencing, as set out in this Bill, because the action plan will deal with the problem. Because of his particular position, he was brought into this House and into the Government to address this issue with the prison system alongside the other issues that we have. I stress—not in a very friendly way, although he is my noble friend—that it is really on his shoulders to get this sorted out. By rejecting the resentencing approach, the approach pursued by the Government has to work. It is on my noble friend the Minister’s shoulders to get this sorted out and to address the problems of mental health and the fact that large proportions of those remaining in prison are incapable of manoeuvring through the system by themselves. The Government have to provide them with support, either through the department or by funding some external agency that will give those suffering from this injustice a way out of the maze.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, given the way the debate on these amendments has gone—and with no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Woodley—I propose to say only a few words about Amendment 7, which is, as I understand it, the only live amendment, so to speak. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who, as is always the case, has given us a lot of food for thought.
There is no doubt that the mental health aspect of the IPP issue is very real, not least because, as I said at Second Reading, my concern is that there will be prisoners who have developed mental health problems while in prison and indeed because of the sentence itself. I think I said that that was a stain on the British state and, if so, I was right to do so.
My noble friend Lord Moylan is therefore right to highlight the issue of mental health. That said, it is not immediately clear to me, looking at the words of the amendment, that the conditions in (6B) and (6C) are necessarily the right conditions to be imposed in this context. Of course, I appreciate that this amendment was tabled to raise the issue rather than to focus on the particular words. I therefore look forward to what the Minister has to say about Amendment 7.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, the second group of amendments clarify the Bill’s clauses and make important changes to the wording. However, the Government maintain reservations about the risk to public protection that the Bill presents. I will respond to all the amendments in turn as I want to set out the Government’s position.
My noble friend Lord Woodley’s Amendment 4 sets out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle, but it is already established by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We therefore do not believe that this amendment is required.
My noble friend’s Amendment 5 would allow a resentencing court to retain the IPP sentence where the offender might properly have received a life sentence and where, at the time of resentencing, they constitute a substantial risk of causing serious harm if released. Crucially, this would not prevent the resentencing of those who do not fall within these parameters and whom the Parole Board have previously assessed as not safe to be released. This is because the test being applied by a resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board’s statutory test.
My noble friend’s Amendment 6 would provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended licence on release, if it deemed it necessary. Noble Lords are aware of the provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Act that allow for licence termination. This amendment would still involve the release of IPP prisoners who have previously been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test. It would therefore not address our fundamental public protection concerns about undertaking a resentencing exercise.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for Amendment 7, and acknowledge her empathetic consideration for the individuals serving IPP sentences who require additional support for their mental health, especially the 233 individuals in secure hospitals. The amendment would allow a resentencing exercise to substitute an IPP sentence with a hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence being committed, whereas this amendment would lead to a hospital order being substituted when an offender currently has a mental disorder. As with earlier amendments, this amendment would remove the IPP sentence irrespective of the Parole Board’s assessment of an individual’s risk. Instead, the individual could be released by a mental health review tribunal. This process may not fully consider the risk posed to victims and the public.
IPP prisoners, like any prisoner, can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be transferred to secure mental health hospitals if this care is required, and I am currently working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported towards release when that care is no longer required. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about disengaged IPP-ers, as I refer to them, and hospital returnees. It concerns me that, for example, they may be returned to a category B local prison, which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I am very keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for Amendment 8. Although the Government do not support the Bill, I understand the intention behind her amendment to assess the impact on services if the Bill were to become law. There is, however, already a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act for the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders. The annual report is expected to be published by Summer Recess and will show the progress that has been made.
Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan on 26 April 2023, there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. Additionally, when I became a Minister, 70% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prison for their needs. This has now increased to around 80% and HMPPS continues to make improvements in this area. This will help more of these individuals progress towards a release because they will be better able to access the support they need.
The second amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendment 9, would reduce the licence period of one year for those who were subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment does not define what would constitute an invalid recall, and my noble friend is perhaps referring to an unlawful recall, which would likely be the legal interpretation. If, however, he is suggesting scenarios where further information comes to light and the reasons for recall should be reconsidered, there is the risk-assessed recall review—RARR—process.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was slightly confused in the summation. The implication, if you were just listening in and did not know about this subject, is that, largely, people were given IPP sentences originally because of sexual and violent acts. That is not accurate. Maybe the Minister could clarify what he meant by that. One of the arguments that I was putting forward—maybe the Minister could reflect on this—is that the dangerousness we keep hearing about from different Governments’ versions of the MoJ is often associated with a deterioration of behaviour because of poor mental health created by the sentence. The Minister says that the Parole Board are the only people who can assess whether the behaviour is dangerous or not but, in the instances of mental illness, would it not be better for a clinical assessment? Hospitals have to make decisions all the time about releasing people based on whether they are dangerous or not. They are in a much stronger position, surely, than the Parole Board, which does not necessarily understand mental ill health.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
HMIP did a report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionately. I believe that the Parole Board has the right skills and experience to make these often very difficult and complex decisions. On the make-up of the cohort of IPP prisoners, I will write with the exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, this Committee has not materialised in the way that I would have preferred. Not least, it has not led towards what I hoped was going to be a vote or, maybe more importantly, the Minister finally agreeing to move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohort that we have highlighted so carefully and fairly.
While I have that disappointment, I think it is fair to say that we have done one thing that IPP prisoners will be grateful for. We have yet again raised awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and among the wider public. There is therefore no way to say, “We will do something”, and then do nothing. There is no escape for us in this House to ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day.
Once again, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Davies. The expertise that they have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and their support is, as always, very much appreciated.
I shall finish where my noble friend Lord Davies finished, and the Minister has just said it: it is in your hands now, sir. It is no good being a nice man with a good heart whose will is there to try to make these changes if we then find that we are back in 12 months or two years and nothing has moved and the number of people who have committed suicide has gone from 100 to 110. It is now on the Minister’s shoulders, and I look forward to working with him and others to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades now.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“(6A) A court carrying out a review of a sentence of IPP may substitute a hospital order, with or without a restriction on release, for a sentence of IPP.(6B) A court may not make a hospital order under subsection (6A) unless—(a) it has received evidence from two registered medical practitioners that the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for them to be detained in hospital for treatment, and(b) those medical professionals have recommended what treatment would be appropriate.(6C) A court may not add a restriction on release to a hospital order unless—(a) it is satisfied that the subject of that hospital order poses a significant risk to the public if not detained in a hospital, (b) one registered medical practitioner who has given oral evidence in court supports the making of a restriction order, and(c) it is satisfied that appropriate in-patient treatment is available for the defendant concerned.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure those serving IPP and suffering from a mental disorder who present a significant risk are detained in a secure mental hospital until discharged by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales or a Secretary of State.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to say one thing. When people say that we do not want to give people false hope, the obvious thing is to do something real so that they have real hope. We do not have to give them false hope, we can change things, but I shall not move the amendment.