Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope the House will bear with me, as I fear I may be losing my voice. Some people may be happy about that, but I will attempt to get through as best I can.
This Government are determined to ensure that everyone has access to the skills, support and confidence they need to take part in a modern digital society, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances. This is a hugely important issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I believe has one of the lowest levels—if not the lowest level—of broadband coverage in the country. Building Digital UK recently signed a £157 million contract to deliver broadband across the Western Isles, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is determined to make sure this happens as an urgent priority, as am I.
Torcuil Crichton
I welcome the Secretary of State and her friendly-faced team to their posts. I also welcome the millions going into Project Gigabit. However, that money is finding its way into Openreach’s coffers but not to the end of the road in the Western Isles. I have many constituents, including two in my own village of Swordale, who have built their homes and have all the utilities except broadband. The cabinet is just a couple of hundred metres away, but why should Openreach throw the switch? It has made millions from installation down the spine of the islands, but it is not going the last few yards. Can the Secretary of State press Openreach to go those last few yards and look at the physical infrastructure access costs that other providers have to pay for legacies like copper wiring and wooden poles from another era?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his passion about this issue. He should come in and talk to Ministers, officials and Building Digital UK to set out what he thinks needs to happen, because we are only going to get this right if we work with people on the ground. The Western Isles contract will provide cover for 65,000 new premises across the area, including 8,000 in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have to do this—we have to push further and faster—and I am sure my hon. Friend will make it happen on the ground.
Jamie Stone
On behalf of my party, I welcome the Secretary of State to her place.
On the other side of the highlands in the royal burgh of Cromarty—it is an adjacent seat, Mr Speaker—we have an appalling situation. I have in my constituency an old lady with a heart condition who had no means of communication whatsoever for days on end. Will the Secretary of State have a word in the right ear to sort out this desperate situation?
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Gentleman sends us the details, we will make that issue a top priority. As we build the country of the future through jobs, growth and transforming public services, we cannot deliver for everybody in every part of the country unless they have the broadband coverage they need. Three of the seven new contracts that BDUK has signed this year are in Scotland, with funding of—I believe—£287 million. We want value for money, and the hon. Gentleman wants to deliver for his constituents. Together, we will make it happen.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Protecting children from harmful content online is a top priority for this Government and for me personally, because it is a deeply concerning issue for parents and children across the country. Since implementing the Online Safety Act this summer, 6,000 sites have taken action to stop children seeing harmful content online, but I will be paying close attention to what is working and will not hesitate to go further if necessary. Indeed, on Monday I added self-harm material to the list of priority offences in the Act, so if companies do not take down content that promotes self-harm or actively stop it appearing, they will face enforcement action. I hope this shows the House my determination to take all necessary steps on this issue.
Matt Turmaine
It is so gratifying to see a Watfordian at the Dispatch Box. In my constituency of Watford, parents and families are rightly pleased with the protections being afforded to children and vulnerable people through the Online Safety Act 2023. We would not allow a child to get into a car and drive down the road, to go into an off-licence and buy tobacco or alcohol products, or to go into an adult entertainment establishment, so does the Secretary of State agree that children and vulnerable people need protections in the virtual world, just as they do in the physical one?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree, and that is why I am determined to do everything necessary to remove illegal content and to protect children from online harms. Many years ago, when I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee, as part of a report we were doing, I spoke to children in secondary and primary schools in my constituency to see what they felt were the benefits and difficulties of being online. It is an issue I have been concerned about for many years. I am determined to take action, not just for the fabulous people of Watford, but for children and young people right across the country.
Joe Powell
I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. Does she agree that Reform’s reckless plans to scrap the Online Safety Act would fail a generation of young people, including all the parents and children in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater who have joined my local campaign to protect children online?
Liz Kendall
Yes. If Reform Members are so concerned about the Online Safety Act, why are they not here in the Chamber asking me questions about it? Reform wants to scrap the Act, which would mean ripping up protections that crack down on revenge porn, violent misogynistic content, and posts encouraging self-harm or suicide. I commend my hon. Friend on his campaign. Families in his constituency want action, and that is what we intend to take. Finally, we are putting child safety first by taking down illegal content, taming toxic algorithms and making age-inappropriate content harder to access. We will go further if we need to.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to her position. Will she look at the downloading of virtual private networks, which allow people to get content from all over the world? Many VPNs are based overseas. Once they are downloaded, parents have no control whatsoever if their children are then accessing immoral and illegal content.
Liz Kendall
In the few days that I have been in post, a number of MPs and other organisations have already raised this issue with me. I will always be driven by evidence. I want to protect people’s rights to privacy, but I want to make sure that nothing is done that will put people at risk. If the hon. Member has evidence and wants to send that to me, I am more than happy to look at it, because I want to take the action required.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I have been contacted by many constituents worried about the implementation of the Act. For example, Emily, who is home-schooled and has ME, struggles to access things that help with her learning and her rural isolation. Alexander says that he has accessed gambling sites, but cannot access suicide prevention content. As we mark World Suicide Prevention Day, how can we make sure that the Act is a little more nuanced?
Liz Kendall
I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned that today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Anyone who has experienced it in relation to their family or friends, or in their constituency, knows how devastating it can be.
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. From my constituency experience, children and young people want to benefit from all the opportunities and learning they can, but sometimes it is difficult to get it right. It is a complex issue. As a new Secretary of State, I need to get into the detail, but I will always listen. When the evidence is there, I hope to take the appropriate action.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the new ministerial team to their places, and thank the former team, who I have very much enjoyed sparring with over the past few months.
In light of the report of the Department’s plans to review the implementation of the Online Safety Act, can the Secretary of State confirm the scope of that review, including whether it will address the apparent confusion in the media between the powers of the Online Safety Act and the Public Order Act 1986? Will the review look at age verification to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure, and that the pass schemes they use are trusted? Will it tackle the use of VPNs, particularly by children, to get around age verification?
Liz Kendall
I am always driven by the evidence. We need to see how the Act is being implemented and whether and how it works, and that is the absolute priority for me. I will look at any evidence that hon. Members provide, but the key thing for me is that we are taking action. We have one of the strongest protections anywhere in the world, but I am very interested in the issue of addiction in children online and in how behaviours can become addictive. In this very fast-moving world, we need to be fleet of foot. I think the truth is that the technology develops much faster than we make legislation, and that is a nut that we have to crack.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I, too, thank the previous ministerial team and welcome the new one—I very much look forward to working together.
Following the roll-out of the Online Safety Act, there is evidence that harmful content is still being algorithmically shown to young children and that artificial intelligence technologies, which have been linked to teenage deaths, are not covered properly in the Act, and concerns have been raised about data protection and inappropriately age-gated educational content. We must get the Act right, so will the Secretary of State consider our calls for a digital Bill of Rights to set the standard, in order that we can truly adapt to this era of technological change?
Liz Kendall
We do need to adapt to this age of phenomenal technological development. I have already had a discussion with the chief executive of Ofcom and I intend to meet many other organisations, including those that champion stronger protections for children online. The hon. Lady raises the critical issue that we need to protect people’s privacy, and we need to protect freedom of speech, but we also need to make sure that illegal content, and harmful content for children, is removed. I will leave no stone unturned in delivering on that objective.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
New technology in the workplace can help companies become more productive and efficient. In making workplaces more accessible so that people can get work and stay in work, it is also good for people. We are supporting companies in a number of ways, especially through our industrial strategy, and we have seen great examples of UK firms adopting tech—artificial intelligence, in particular—ahead of their international peers. We want to do all we can to support companies in this area, and I am determined to take action on that.
Lewis Cocking
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Small businesses in my constituency are vital to economic growth. What is her Department doing to ensure that small businesses can benefit from innovation and new technology?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. My own constituency is dominated by small businesses, and one issue that they always raise is that we are great at start-ups in this country but we need to do more to help those companies to scale up. I am new in the job and open to ideas, so if the hon. Gentleman and the businesses in his constituency would like to say what they think they need to help them go from start-up to scale-up, I would be more than happy to listen to them.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank the outgoing ministerial team for their engagement as I congratulate the new team on succeeding to this important and inspiring brief.
The Government are committed to transforming public services through the adoption of new technologies. At the June spending review, Departments published their plans to deploy technologies to achieve efficiencies, but we are yet to see the detailed and fully funded road map for delivery promised by DSIT for this summer. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing a road map that sets out what will be delivered, who will deliver it and by when, and how much it will cost, before her appearance before my Committee as part of our digital centre of government inquiry in November?
Liz Kendall
I have a feeling that will be one of the gentler questions that my hon. Friend asks me over the coming months. I am a passionate public service reformer and I believe there is huge potential for technology and AI to deliver better outcomes for the people who use services and better value for taxpayers’ money. I will definitely provide her with more detail on the questions that she asked, but let me give a fantastic example from my previous role. In our jobcentres in Wales, there were big queues for work coaches who were helping people do their CVs. They used AI, and it was better for the people who used the service and freed up the work coaches to spend time with the people who most needed help. That is a small example; we have to do more, and I will absolutely commit to setting out our further plans.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Through the Online Safety Act 2023, platforms now have a legal duty to protect users from illegal content and safeguard children from harmful content. Ofcom has strong powers to hold firms to account, including fines of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. Ofcom has made it clear that it will act where platforms fall short, and has already launched 12 investigations into suspected non-compliance. I assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to review this area carefully and will not hesitate to go further.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the Minister to his position.
On World Suicide Prevention Day, I welcome the Government’s action requiring online platforms to proactively protect users from illegal and harmful content, but charities like the Molly Rose Foundation remain concerned about whether major platforms are fully complying with UK regulations, especially on risk assessments. What further steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Ofcom enforces the law and responds robustly to any breaches?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend for an important and timely question. It is important because I have been in the room with Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, and I have seen the tireless resilience with which he and the Molly Rose Foundation have campaigned to protect children online. It is a timely question because, in memory of cases like Molly Russell’s, suicide prevention must remain front and centre in our minds. That is precisely why, in the first week of this new ministerial team, the Secretary of State announced that self-harm content is now a priority offence. Ofcom has requested risk assessments from over 60 services, including smaller but high-risk platforms, and I know it is actively enforcing compliance as well.
Patrick Hurley
I welcome the Minister to his place.
Yesterday, I sponsored a drop-in event here in Parliament with Parent Zone to highlight the “hit pause” campaign, which aims to teach people to recognise conspiracy theories and misinformation online. Does the Minister agree that although we can make online platforms more accountable in other ways, these kinds of initiatives should be widely available to help equip people with the means to protect themselves when the tech companies fail to take responsibility for the content on their platforms?
Kanishka Narayan
I am grateful for this chance to put on the record that even when others have put their interests first, my hon. Friend has always put Southport above everything. In doing so, he has inspired many of us from across the House.
Media literacy includes critically evaluating information. It is a key skill in helping people to be protected from harm online, and I know that the technology companies play a crucial role. We welcome collaborative initiatives like Parent Zone’s “hit pause” programme, and I encourage all platforms to continue to expand their work to embed media literacy into their product design.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place.
When it comes to holding tech companies accountable for using copyrighted material on their platforms without consent, the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 let down our creative industries. The Department’s new working groups on AI and copyright include just one British tech firm, alongside a host of foreign tech competitors. Will his Government now give our tech sector and creative industries the proper voice they deserve?
Kanishka Narayan
Our technology sector, our entrepreneurs and our creators are close to my heart, as I spent most of my professional life—prior to coming to this place—in those contexts. We have consulted, we have listened and we continue to listen as a new team. Across the board, we will look closely at the evidence and make sure that we are backing this country’s entrepreneurs and creators.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Over the last 10 days in my constituency, there have been five of the most appalling and violent acts by self-styled vigilante groups. In each case, they livestream on Facebook Live and TikTok LIVE. Those videos disappear, and the creators remain anonymous. There will be a criminal justice response, but may I ask the Minister to relook at the protections for those who continue not only to abuse and act racistly in our society, but to do so under the cloak of anonymity?
Kanishka Narayan
The right hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I am sorry and disappointed to hear of the instances he mentions. This is an incredibly important issue. We will look closely at the evidence base and if, under the codes of practice for illegal harm already published and implemented by Ofcom, there are found to be deficiencies in practice by any of the firms he mentions, we will, I am sure, take appropriate action.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
I am delighted to join the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. This is a crucial area for our country, providing opportunities for jobs and work, and to improve our public services. As Secretary of State, I am getting to work straight away. As I said on Monday, I have strengthened the law to add further protections from dangerous self-harm material online. Social media companies now have to take action to not just remove that material but prevent it from coming up in the first place, so that the internet can live up to its real potential as a place of opportunity where everyone can learn, connect and be creative, free from fear.
Susan Murray
I, too, welcome the right hon. Member to her place. Her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), warned that losing control of artificial general intelligence would be catastrophic, yet he failed to deliver legislation to protect the public. Will the new Secretary of State deliver on an artificial intelligence Bill, and ensure that the British people benefit from the advantages of AI, without becoming its victims?
Liz Kendall
I want to ensure that people, businesses and creatives throughout the country can benefit from the huge opportunities that technological developments in AI promise, and that people are protected, too. It is early days in this job, and I am listening carefully to all those involved, but wherever action is required, I will take it.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend will know that the UK is a world leader in research and innovation. Over the spending review period, we are delivering £86 billion for research and development—a record amount. UKRI invests more than £300 million a year in transport innovation, and sustainability is a key focus. Projects include work to develop new aviation fuel production technologies that could reduce emissions by up to 80%. There is more that we can do. I know he is passionate about this issue, and either I or my Ministers will be very happy to meet him to talk more about what we can do.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the shadow Secretary of State. I welcome her to her new position.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the new Secretary of State to her place and, of course, I welcome her stellar team. The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), is so hot that he snared two jobs from the guy who just fired him. The Tech Secretary replaces the Ozempic of Whitehall, the right hon. Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), who claimed that his digital plan would shear £45 billion of fat from the Government. By how much did it cut the civil service?
Liz Kendall
I believe that using tech and AI to modernise our public services enables the people who work in the public sector to spend more time on the things they want to spend time on—serving the users of public services—and less time on red tape and bureaucracy, much of which was put in place by the hon. Lady’s Government.
Julia Lopez
I fully agree with the right hon. Lady, but the number of civil servants has risen to a 20-year high under Labour. If somebody in the private sector led a reverse efficiency drive, they would get sacked; Labour made the person responsible Business Secretary. For a welfare meltdown, you get to be the Minister for the future, but while AI is screaming for cheap electricity, the Prime Minister cannot sack his failing Energy Secretary. Why should the tech sector believe that this is a Government of delivery?
Liz Kendall
Because this Government believe that science, technology and innovation are how this country will seize the opportunities of the future. Unlike Opposition Members, we are determined to deliver that change for people in every part of the country, no matter where they live, because our people are our best asset. We want to grow the economy, transform our public services, and sort out the mess left by Opposition Members.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
We cannot ensure that everybody in this country benefits from being online and from developments unless everybody is joined up to fast broadband. We have put £1.8 billion over the spending review period into making connectivity work. I am working closely with Building Digital UK; if my hon. Friend has concerns about his constituents, he should come and meet me and Building Digital UK to get them online, because that is how they will seize the opportunities of the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I start, Mr Speaker, by expressing our sincere condolences to His Majesty the King and the royal family on the death of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. Her life was filled with compassion and dignity. She dutifully supported our late Queen Elizabeth II, comforted the runner-up at Wimbledon, and worked anonymously as a music teacher in Hull—typical of her unassuming nature and human touch. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, his family, and all those whose lives she touched.
Turning to other events, I condemn the strikes that Israel carried out in Doha yesterday. They violate Qatar’s sovereignty and do nothing to secure the peace that the UK and so many of our allies are committed to. I spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night, soon after the attack, to convey our support and solidarity. He was crystal clear that notwithstanding the attacks, he will continue to work on a diplomatic solution to achieve a ceasefire and a two-state outcome, on which he and I are of the same mind. That is why I met President Abbas on Monday and will meet President Herzog later today. I will be absolutely clear that we condemn Israel’s action. I will also be clear that restrictions on aid must be lifted, the offensive in Gaza must stop, and settlement building must cease. But however difficult, the UK will not walk away from a diplomatic solution. We will negotiate, and we will strain every sinew, because that is the only way to get the hostages out, to get aid in, and to stop the killing.
Last night, Russia launched drones into Poland in an unprecedented attack. I have been in touch with the Polish Prime Minister this morning to make clear our support for Poland. We will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. With our partners and through our leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Speaker
I have sent a letter of condolence to the royal family on behalf of the Commons, following the sad news about the Duchess of Kent. Let us now come back to Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Luke Evans
One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?
The Prime Minister
Here is the difference: I strengthened the ministerial code and the independent adviser. The previous Deputy Prime Minister referred herself to the adviser, and there was a clear finding; she did the right thing. Contrast that with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was found to have breached the code under the previous Government. What did the then Prime Minister do? He ignored it. There was a resignation, but it was of the adviser, not the person who was found to have breached the code; the right hon. Lady still sits on the Opposition Front Bench. That is the difference.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman carries on, there won’t be 10 more decades of the SNP in this Chamber.
Melanie Ward
Thank you, Mr Speaker. After almost two decades of the SNP and 14 years of the Tories, Kirkcaldy High Street has been in a state of decline. That is why the Chancellor was right to prioritise Kirkcaldy for multimillion-pound regeneration funding from the new growth mission fund, to build on the enormous potential of our town and its beautiful sea front. Does the Prime Minister agree that investment over decline is key for this Labour Government, and will he ask the new Business Secretary to meet me to discuss the funding?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for investment in her high street. I can give her good news: thanks to funding committed by the Chancellor and this Labour Government, I can confirm today that subject to business case approval, we will approve millions to transform Kirkaldy’s high street and sea front. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting she wants with the Business Secretary. The SNP has squandered the potential of high streets for two decades. Next year, people can vote for positive change with a Scottish Labour Government.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments about the Duchess of Kent; she lived an exemplary life of public service, and will be very much missed. I agree with the Prime Minister, as all of us in this House should: we stand shoulder to shoulder with Poland and all our NATO allies against Putin’s aggression. A NATO country has just had to defend itself against Russian drones. Now more than ever, we need our ambassador to Washington fully focused on this issue, and liaising closely with America. Does the Prime Minister have full confidence in Peter Mandelson?
The Prime Minister
Let me start by saying that the victims of Epstein are at the forefront of our minds. He was a despicable criminal who committed the most heinous crimes and destroyed the lives of so many women and girls. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with Epstein, and he is right to do so. I have confidence in him, and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.
Mrs Badenoch
This is interesting. The Prime Minister says that the ambassador has expressed full regret, but the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein have called for Lord Mandelson to be sacked. Just so the House is aware, in 2019, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of child prostitution and sex trafficking, which took place between 2002 and 2005. That is the precise period when Lord Mandelson called Jeffrey Epstein his “best pal”. Was the Prime Minister aware of this intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Mandelson to be our ambassador in Washington?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Lady and the House would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors. The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret, and he is right to do so. He is now playing an important part in the US-UK relationship.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister if he knew about the relationship. The fact that he did not answer indicates that he probably did know. I was not asking a question about process; I was asking a question about his judgment. The Daily Telegraph reported today that while Lord Mandelson was Business Secretary, he brokered a deal with Jeffrey Epstein, and that this occurred after Epstein had been convicted of child sex offences. Given this new information, does the Prime Minister really think that it is tenable for our ambassador to remain in post?
The Prime Minister
The relationship between the US and the UK is one of our foremost relationships, and I have confidence in the ambassador in the role he is doing.
Mrs Badenoch
I think it is embarrassing that the Prime Minister is still saying that he has confidence in a man who was brokering deals with convicted child sex offenders while sitting in Government. That is a disgrace. This Government have repeatedly refused to declare Lord Mandelson’s full interests. As part of the appointment, there will have been extensive Government vetting, covering details and timings of Peter Mandelson’s dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Will the Prime Minister publish all the documents, including those about Lord Mandelson’s interests?
The Prime Minister
As I say, full due process was gone through in relation to this appointment, as would be expected. As the right hon. Lady well knows, the publication of documents is subject to a procedure that includes an independent element. This would have been subject to the usual procedure.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister cannot answer any questions. That is not the behaviour of someone who has full confidence. The ambassador should be in the White House, talking about how we respond to an incursion into NATO airspace; instead, he is giving interviews about himself to The Sun. This is a man who has already had to be removed from Cabinet twice, and now we learn that he was brokering billion-pound deals with Jeffrey Epstein while he was Business Secretary.
I did not get a proper answer. The Prime Minister is talking about process, but this is not about process; this is about judgment. Just last week, I told him that he should sack his Deputy Prime Minister. Labour Members were all cheering and congratulating themselves, but she was gone two days later. His phase 2 is broken, and he has a wholly new Front-Bench team. I will ask him again: will he ensure that these documents are published? Will he actually instruct Peter Mandelson to publish all his correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein?
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition says that the ambassador should be in the White House, discussing NATO; he is. We all are discussing that—we did so through a number of international calls this morning—as well as Ukraine and the attack in Doha yesterday. I see that she is finally catching up with the questions that she should have asked last week about the Deputy Prime Minister. In the meantime, we have opened up a new school-based nursery; on Monday, we had the defence industrial strategy; and on Tuesday, we published NHS league tables to push up standards. We reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport yesterday, and today we have set out how we are repairing the concrete in our hospitals.
Mrs Badenoch
A load of waffle and whataboutery. All Labour Members are interested in right now is their pointless deputy leadership election, while the country out there is suffering from an economic crisis. The Prime Minister has an ambassador mired in scandal, not focusing on NATO. He lost his Deputy Prime Minister just last week for evading taxes. He has a new Home Secretary and a new Foreign Secretary who are just learning the ropes and not able to help with this issue. We have strikes crippling our capital city and damaging our economy. He could use the minimum service legislation that the Conservatives introduced to make the lives of the people out there better, but he will not, because he does not have the backbone to face down the unions. The unions are running the Government; all the deputy leadership candidates are chasing after them. With this Government, it is more strikes, more scandal and more chaos. Is not the link between all this his bad decisions, his bad judgment and his total weakness?
The Prime Minister
Our deputy leader contest started this week and ends on 25 October. The Conservatives’ leadership contest has been going on for months, and will continue for a very long time. [Interruption.] All this noise from the arsonists while we are putting out the fires that they left behind! Interest rates and waiting lists are down. Wages, investment and deportations are up. Now we are stepping up defence spending, creating new jobs, driving up standards in our NHS and rebuilding our crumbling schools and hospitals. This is a Government of patriots fighting for working people.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that we have made progress on the NHS. We promised 2 million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government, and we have delivered not 2 million, not 3 million, but over 4 million extra appointments, with 2,000 extra GPs. We are clearing up the dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in our hospitals. The national league tables that we published this week will ensure that investment goes where it is needed most, and our 10-year health plan will see neighbourhood health centres in every community, treating patients closer to home. There is more to do, but we have made a lot of progress.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to His Majesty and the royal family on the death of the Duchess of Kent. I also echo the Prime Minister’s condemnation of Netanyahu’s attacks on Qatar. Those are not the actions of a leader truly focused on getting hostages home. I hope that the Prime Minister will say that directly to President Herzog later today. On World Suicide Prevention Day, I thank all who are working to prevent suicides, from professionals to charities like the Samaritans.
When I talk to parents of disabled children, there is one complaint about Government that comes up time and again: all the hoops that parents must jump through, be it dealing with EHCPs, the DWP or HMRC. Caring is exhausting enough without all the forms, and the rules that show no understanding of the realities of life as a carer. That is something that Emily and I know well, and something that the former Deputy Prime Minister brought attention to last week. Will the Prime Minister work with carers across the House to overhaul systems for family carers, so that Government works much better for people looking after their loved ones?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; there are too many hurdles and too many hoops that have to be gone through. That is why we are simplifying the system, and we will, of course, work across the House with all those who want to achieve that outcome.
May I also thank those dealing with suicide prevention? Probably everybody in this House knows someone who has taken their life. It touches all of us and we must do everything we can, together, to prevent suicide.
Ed Davey
Moving on, as the Leader of the Opposition said, Lord Mandelson has admitted to continuing his relationship long after Epstein was convicted, and that there are more embarrassing details that we do not yet know. People will be surprised by the Prime Minister giving Ambassador Mandelson such strong support today. Will he tell the House whether he has asked the ambassador what other compromising material the Trump Administration might have on him as he leads Britain’s negotiations with the White House?
The Prime Minister
As I have made clear to the House, full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have read through the details of Connor’s case, which has just been summarised. It is heartbreaking. I thank my hon. Friend for consistently campaigning and championing all those affected. I will make sure that he gets the meetings he needs so that we can hear from Connor and others and learn from their experience.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Gaza is a graveyard. Yet rather than end arms sales, extend sanctions and stand by international law, the Prime Minister will today welcome into his home—a home entrusted to him by the people of these isles—the man who called for the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and who signed the artillery shells that destroyed their homes, their families and their friends; a man who will ignore every word the Prime Minister says. Would he invite Vladimir Putin into No. 10? Would he invite Benjamin Netanyahu into No. 10? What does it say of this Prime Minister that he will harbour this man while children starve?
The Prime Minister
For the record, we have suspended arms that could be used in Gaza, we have sanctioned extremists and we have suspended trade talks. The point the right hon. Gentleman raises is a very serious one. We all want an outcome that ensures that there is peace, that the hostages get out, that aid gets in and that there is a two-state outcome. It is the only way we will get peace in a region that has suffered conflict for a very, very long time. I will not give up on diplomacy—that is the politics of students.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We will ban fracking for good, and let us be absolutely clear that the biggest risk to energy prices is staying hooked on volatile international fossil fuel markets. In stark contrast, Reform is ignoring local communities, putting green jobs and investment at risk and committing to higher bills by warning renewable companies not to invest. That is shocking.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the friends and family of the constituent that he referenced. Indeed, our thoughts are with all those affected, particularly farmers, and I want to join him in thanking our firefighters, who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. We have provided Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority with an increased budget of almost £75 million, but I will ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for to ensure that we can properly support our firefighters and protect our farmland.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am pleased that the employment rate is up, that inactivity is down and that we have created over 380,000 jobs since we have been in power. Going further, I know that my hon. Friend, as a proud Yorkshireman, will welcome the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport just yesterday, which was made possible by the decisions we have made. That is a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government to create jobs across the country.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Prime Minister
We have very clear and strict rules in relation to this, and we have taken action in relation to arms sales.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Hefin was a proud Welshman and a champion for Caerphilly. We send our love and support to his partner, Vikki, and his daughters, family and friends.
Wales has a thriving defence sector and I am delighted that it will host one of our new defence growth zones. That is investing £250 million to make defence an engine for jobs and growth across the United Kingdom. That is what we get when we have a Labour Government in both Cardiff and Westminster working together to deliver for Wales.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have been clear on a number of occasions: I do want the police to concentrate on serious crime and on crime that matters most to our communities in each of our constituencies. I have said that before, and I say it again today.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives decimated neighbourhood policing. People should feel safe in their communities, and that is exactly why we have committed to putting 13,000 additional police personnel back in our town centres and communities. That means there will be a named police officer in every community, armed with tough new respect orders to break up antisocial behaviour. These powers are contained in our Crime and Policing Bill, which the Conservatives and Reform voted against.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
His Majesty’s Prison Stoke Heath in Shropshire has seen six deaths in custody in less than two years. That is above the national average. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there are enough resources and that the right governance is in place at Stoke Heath?
The Prime Minister
The Secretary of State for Justice will look into the matter and take up the suggestion, and I will arrange for a meeting as soon as possible.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority, and I am proud that Labour is protecting 500,000 children by rolling out chickenpox vaccines. In stark contrast, the man who wrote Reform’s health policy has made shocking and baseless claims that vaccines are linked to cancer, and that has been endorsed by the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—[Interruption.] They laugh at it. These dangerous conspiracies cost lives, and this shows that Reform cannot be trusted with our NHS.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Sunnica solar farm, which runs through my constituency, was given permission by this Government, and there are more solar farm applications in the pipeline. My constituents are concerned that these applications are being made without a land use framework, which would have provided reassurance that the competing demands for land are balanced effectively. Will the Prime Minister commit to giving the land use framework statutory weight to ensure that land is used strategically to get the best out of it for new clean, renewable energy that genuinely benefits communities and for farmers, nature, water and housing?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we move to renewables in order to have energy independence and to keep our bills down, and this will benefit lots of communities, including the hon. Member’s. I want to reassure her constituents that we will of course follow process and that they will always have a say in any decisions that we make.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The previous Government shattered the dream of home ownership. We are reforming the outdated system so that leaseholders receive stronger rights, powers and protections. We will bring to an end the feudal leasehold system, reinvigorate commonhold and deliver the biggest boost to social affordable housing in a generation.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Since May, my constituent Sue has received thousands of pounds-worth of fines after a criminal gang in London cloned her number plate and went on a rampage through the capital. In an age of increasingly sophisticated digital security, the number registration system seems like a remarkably analogue anachronism—it is ripe for abuse and it is failing drivers. Will the Prime Minister look at and pick up my Vehicle Registration Marks (Misuse and Offences) Bill, which I presented last week, to strengthen the legislation and ensure that police services have the tools they require to tackle that growing crime and protect law-abiding motorists?
The Prime Minister
I am sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. That is an awful situation for anyone to find themselves in. I will of course look at his Bill.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I do recall that visit—it was extremely good and very welcoming. Our support for Ukraine remains unwavering. The attack last night in Poland shows that Putin’s belief is that he can somehow act with impunity. That is why we are working so hard with the coalition of the willing to ensure that there are security guarantees as we go forward. We have made real progress in recent weeks; we must continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the House what we are doing. We are working with the former President of the National Farmers Union, Baroness Minette Batters, to review farm profitability—that is the key issue. We are delivering the 25-year farming road map, and we have struck a deal with the EU, which is of great benefit to farmers, and which of course the Conservatives say they will reverse. That is on top of the £5 billion that we put into farming in our last Budget.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. It can be scary to talk about suicide, but we need to. So many of our constituents will know or love someone who has taken their own life, or they may have suicidal thoughts themselves. But suicide is not inevitable; it is preventable, and everyone has a role to play in saving lives. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to preventing deaths by suicide and say how they are tackling this vital issue?
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking and paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work as my Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past 14 months? She has worked tirelessly and with huge commitment and respect across the whole of this House.
I think that suicide prevention matters to everybody in this House. I will reaffirm our commitment and I will work across the House with all Members to deal with suicide prevention.
Qatar: Israeli Strike
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs to make a statement on the implications of Israel’s strike in Qatar for peace and stability in the middle east and for UK foreign policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The UK Government are deeply concerned by Israel’s strike in Doha yesterday. As the House heard a few minutes ago from the Prime Minister, he and the Foreign Secretary have condemned these flagrant violations of Qatar’s sovereignty, which will set back the cause for peace and risk further escalation in the region. The Prime Minister has spoken to the Emir of Qatar to express the UK’s solidarity and support and to reaffirm our shared commitment to regional stability. The Prime Minister also gave his condolences for the death of a Qatari security officer killed in the attack. Sadly, Qatar’s Ministry of Interior has overnight confirmed the death of a second person.
Qatar is playing a critical role in mediating the conflict, driving efforts to secure a ceasefire and to facilitate vital humanitarian access to Gaza. That must remain the priority. This Government continue to support it in its efforts to push for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages cruelly detained by Hamas, the protection of civilians and the unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza as the vital first steps towards long-term peace and stability. That is the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis alike. That is why we are working with partners to develop a framework for peace that addresses governance, security, humanitarian access and political reform. Negotiation, not more violence, is the way to achieve that. We are actively working together with our international partners, including the G7 and the UN Security Council, to co-ordinate efforts aimed at de-escalation and to reiterate our full support for the sovereignty of Qatar.
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister met President Abbas to discuss the intolerable situation in Gaza, the need for an urgent solution to end horrific suffering and famine, and the Palestinian Authority’s reform agenda, which is vital for a two-state solution. Today the Prime Minister will meet President Herzog of Israel and reiterate the UK’s grave concern following yesterday’s strikes, and reiterate that man-made famine in Gaza must end and the renewed offensive in Gaza must not happen. We will continue to push for a political resolution to end this conflict and strive towards a lasting peace.
Calum Miller
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my application for an urgent question. I am grateful to the Minister for his statement.
Last night’s Israeli strikes against Hamas officials in Qatar heralded a new and grave escalation in this terrible conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s willingness to strike Doha will undermine efforts to secure the release of the hostages still held in Hamas captivity and set back the path to a desperately needed ceasefire. Liberal Democrats have called for more diplomatic pressure to be placed on Hamas by the Qataris, including the threat to exile the leadership of Hamas from Doha unless we see the immediate and unconditional release of the remaining hostages. That is the kind of diplomatic pressure that must be brought to bear. Instead, the Israeli Government have chosen a path that even President Trump, Netanyahu’s biggest cheerleader, appears appalled by.
Let me be clear. Liberal Democrats support the right of the state of Israel to exist and its right to defend itself, like all nations, but Israel has obligations under international law and duties to its allies, both of which it has breached. Can the Minister confirm whether any UK entity, including the joint command at the Al Udeid airbase, was informed by Israel of the attack in advance? Will he confirm that, in addition to what he has already said, the Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Herzog today, will condemn yesterday’s attack in the strongest possible terms and make it clear that the UK views it as a flagrant breach of international law?
Last night’s strikes are inseparable from the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. They have further eroded our collective hope for an end to the suffering of both Gazans and the hostages, so it is time for meaningful action by this Government. Will the Minister confirm that the UK will take the steps necessary today to end the export of F-35 parts to Israel, and in the light of the further egregious breaches of international law directed by Netanyahu overnight, that President Netanyahu will be sanctioned?
Mr Falconer
Mr Speaker, as you would expect and as is our usual practice, I will not be commenting on sanctions from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has set out to this House his intentions for his meeting with President Herzog later. I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary met President Herzog this morning and raised these points among a range of others, including the urgent need both to ensure that aid gets into Gaza and that there is further Israeli support for British efforts to medically evacuate injured children and to provide fully funded scholarships to the UK.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
What happened overnight illustrates a huge problem that the new Foreign Secretary will need to deal with; I am pleased that the Minister will be ably helping her. The problem is this: there is an emboldened, far-right Israeli Government who believe that they can do whatever they like and there will be no consequences, while on the other hand the country of Qatar is genuinely working towards peace. I know the Minister has met the Qatari Ministers; I have met them too. They could not be more sincere in the efforts they are making, yet they get bombed for their efforts. The question for the new Foreign Secretary is how we can make sure that we are not just bystanders but play an active role in dealing with this issue. How will the Prime Minister be able to convey such a message to President Herzog this afternoon?
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. It is vital that at such serious moments that the UN Security Council plays its full part, so I can confirm to her that the UK is supporting calls for an emergency session of the UN Security Council this evening. The Foreign Secretary will be joining calls with her E3 counterparts this afternoon, and we will be discussing this matter, as my right hon. Friend would expect, with a range of G7 allies, including the United States.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This is clearly a very, very serious moment for the middle east. No one in this House wants to see a spiral of escalation of hostilities. Both Israel and Qatar are important and valued strategic partners for the United Kingdom, and we value and recognise the extensive efforts by the Qatari Government to secure the release of hostages and work towards securing a ceasefire. It is tragic, as the Minister has highlighted, that security guards were killed in this attack, but there are some fundamental issues here, and many of these points have been made from the Dispatch Box time and again.
This is a moment for our country. Britain must contribute and provide the British expertise necessary for conflict resolution and support strong regional initiatives, including backing Qatar and the Qataris on releasing the hostages and achieving a ceasefire.
On top of that, of course, we must work with our allies in the United States, and next week’s visit from President Trump is a crucial moment. There can be no more equivocation, as this issue continues to afflict the region day after day after day.
It is also true that we certainly should not be mourning the Hamas leaders who have been killed. Hamas have held innocent hostages in terrorist captivity for over 700 days, and they were responsible for the atrocities of 7 October 2023, which also killed British nationals.
In recent months, Israel has been removing terrorist actors across the middle east—the leadership of the Houthis, Hezbollah and malign individuals in the Iranian regime too. That means that our Government must play a strong role and stand firm on degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and that malign influence in the region. In recognising the sensitivity of the situation in the Gulf, will the Minister confirm what actions he and the FCDO will take to stabilise efforts to secure the release of the hostages; what proactive steps are being taken to degrade Hamas and their capabilities; and, of course, how we can work constructively with our partners in the region to drive the right outcomes, including achieving a ceasefire?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for those important questions. The British Government are fully committed, with our Gulf and G7 partners, to efforts to ensure that the current negotiations come to the conclusions that we wish to see. Those include conclusions in the short term—we have long repudiated Hamas’s hostage taking, so the hostages need to be released immediately, and humanitarian aid must get into Gaza. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), there are also other questions about governance and security, and about the long-term prospects for Gaza, for the west bank, and for a state of Palestine and a state of Israel living side by side. We are fully engaged in that diplomacy, as the right hon. Lady would expect.
On the right hon. Lady’s wider question about fragility in the region, she will be familiar with the decisions we have taken on snapback. I imagine that we will return to discuss Iran in greater detail at some point in the future, as I am conscious that there were developments over recess. We have triggered snapback and we will continue to return to the House to discuss the threat of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The longer that Israel is allowed to act like a rogue state, bombing sovereign countries with impunity and expanding its war in the middle east, the weaker our words look—Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Tunisian soil and now Qatar. Why are we meeting Israel’s President Herzog today, when his own words and those of Netanyahu show a complete disregard for international humanitarian law?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work on a whole range of questions, including current efforts to try to ensure the successful evacuation of vulnerable people from Gaza. It is important that we raise our concerns directly to the Israeli Government, both to contribute to the diplomatic process and to try to secure the practical and tangible help required to get people out of Gaza. The British Foreign Office on its own cannot secure the speedy departures that we wish to see.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Do not the events of yesterday underline the critical need to secure a ceasefire and, above all, to move into a political process? Will the Minister—we are all pleased to see him continuing in his role following the reshuffle—commit to building on the important work done by Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia to effect that peace process? All of them have underlined the fact that there is no place for Hamas in Gaza or anywhere else in government following the events that have taken place.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for the kind words from the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed for those I heard from the Labour Back Benches. I am continuing in my role and look forward to appearing before the House in the usual way. He is right to emphasise not just the important statements from the UK and our western allies, but the important commitments that have been made—particularly in July but since then as well—by Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and a range of other states, which have a real role to play in mediating the immediate pressures and in trying to end up in, as he says, the more permanent ceasefire that we want to see.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the strongest condemnation of the attacks and the blatant disregard for Qatar’s sovereignty. I refer the House to my registered interests, as I visited Qatar last year and spoke to Ministers there. I saw how diligently they are working, day in and day out, to secure the ceasefire and the hostages, and to get that urgent aid in. Does the Minister share my view that Qatar’s role in mediating this conflict will be blown into jeopardy by the recent attack, and will he ensure that the Prime Minister continues to condemn this attack when he meets the Israeli President later this week?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is quite right; Qatar has played a vital role in this conflict. I work closely with my Qatari counterparts, and not just on the urgent issues of the middle east but across a whole range of difficult conflicts. They play a vital role and are committed—as the Emir of Qatar told the Prime Minister this morning—to continuing to play that mediation role. I cannot see how such strikes help Qataris perform that role, but they are committed none the less to continuing it, and they have our full support.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The events of yesterday come as no surprise to those of us in the Chamber who have raised the issue of the Israeli Government’s crimes, committed with an air of complete impunity. It should now be crystal clear to the Minister, as it is to so many across the world, that the Israeli Government are not interested in the slightest in peace, or indeed in the fate of their hostages. In that light, I have two questions. First, what military and intelligence assistance will we provide to the Qataris to allow them to defend themselves against further attacks? Secondly, will the UK add its voice to the growing calls across the world for the formation of an international protection force to enter Gaza and enforce a peace?
Mr Falconer
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we are committed to Qatar’s security and defence—we have a close relationship with the Qataris on both, and we are of course in constant discussions with them about the importance of that collaboration. On his second point about a protective force—and here I will take advantage of the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell), who was Secretary of State for International Development when I was posted in South Sudan with a chapter VII UN peacekeeping force, which at that time had the most far-reaching mandate to protect civilians—we in this Chamber cannot pretend that UN peacekeeping forces are able to impose peace where there is none. There must be a ceasefire negotiation. In Juba I saw, as did the world, the horrifying ethnic cleansing that followed the inability of the UN mission to protect people. We must have a ceasefire. It is easy to get distracted with other alternatives, but the truth is that only a ceasefire will protect civilians in Gaza.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Given that, under article 51 of the UN charter, any pre-emptive strike is normally regarded as justified only when a threat is imminent; that article 2(4) states that
“all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”;
and that article 51 states that
“measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council”,
does my hon. Friend agree that international law and the preservation and strengthening of the rules-based system is vital to the peoples of the region, the wider world, our ally Qatar and the UK? Will he make it clear to Israel that we expect it to obey international law?
Mr Falconer
We expect Israel, alongside all of our allies, and indeed every state, to abide by international law. My hon. Friend sets out the relevant tests of self-defence and imminence. As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for an urgent session of the Security Council this afternoon on this question.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Members have already outlined how Israel has violated international law by attacking Qatar. Will the UK Government lay therefore down a motion at the UN to condemn the actions of Israel?
Mr Falconer
As I have said, the UK is supporting a motion for a session of the UN Security Council this afternoon. If that motion is granted, the session is expected to take place this evening—our time.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel is a rogue state that blatantly disregards international law. This bombing was a blatant attempt to scupper peace negotiations. Pleading with Israel will do no good, so how many more war crimes or violations of international law are necessary before the Government impose the tough sanctions on Israel that are needed to force it to stop this?
Mr Falconer
I think I covered the point about sanctions earlier.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I was surprised and disappointed that there was no word from the Secretary of State in relation to the terrorist attack in Jerusalem on Monday, where terrorists opened fire on a bus, killing rabbis and women. The reality is that Hamas’s leadership not only condoned the attack, but praised it. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we get to the point of having a ceasefire that allows for the release of all the hostages without conditions, and for Hamas to surrender their weapons and agree to demilitarise Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the attack in Jerusalem, which I condemn utterly and outright. It was barbaric and, as he says, women and rabbis were killed. The UK has no truck with it and we condemn it outright, just as we condemn all such activities by Hamas, including the taking of hostages, the events of 7 October and the long litany of terrorist attacks that they are responsible for and glorify.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Benjamin Netanyahu’s extrajudicial killings against a sovereign western ally expose his rejection of peace and deliberate escalation of atrocities in a clear violation of international law and diplomacy. He has destroyed the peace talks and acts with impunity. The UK Government have rightly condemned these actions, but when will they uphold international law, call out the Israeli Prime Minister as a warmonger and perpetrator of genocide, end arms sales to Israel and impose the severe sanctions that his conduct demands?
Mr Falconer
The Prime Minister set out some of what our Government have done in relation to the suspension of arms sales and sanctions on extremist figures in the Israeli Government, so I will not belabour those points here. On peace talks, the Emir of Qatar is clear that the Qataris will continue in their mediation role. We should not count out peace talks while the Qataris rightly continue to try to push them forwards.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Israel’s bombing of Doha was the action of a state that knows it can act with complete impunity. Once again, the Netanyahu regime has shown that international law simply does not apply to it, and as long as this Government ignore the overwhelming evidence of the genocide in Gaza, so that they can profit from the sales of weapons to Israel, that situation will continue. Will Minister tell us—unless this is just another example of the performative condemnation that we have seen so often from this Government—what exactly the consequences will be for Israel for this egregious attack on Qatar?
Mr Falconer
I have set out some of the steps that we are taking in relation to this strike, including supporting an emergency session of the UN Security Council and having discussions with our allies, including the E3, which the Foreign Secretary will undertake shortly. I would not wish to be drawn further as we discuss this very important incident with our allies. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. The conflict in Gaza is not a question that relates primarily to UK arms. We are a tiny supplier of residual arms. We have suspended the sale of all of those arms that could be used in Gaza. There are other states with much fuller arms relationships—[Interruption.]
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman says “15%”, when in fact he means 15% of components of the total F-35 supply. The truth about the total supply to Israel is that it is less than 1%.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is absolutely right to call for a session at the United Nations—nobody can think that attacking the people trying to broker peace is going to lead to a ceasefire—but ahead of that, this country must have made some assessment of the case for the session and the motion. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his officials have made about the civilian casualties and whether this strike is proportionate under the boundaries of the laws of armed conflict, as set out in international law? If we go to the UN, what case will we be making?
Mr Falconer
I would not want to be drawn on a casualty tally from the UK. As I set out in my response, Qatar has been clear about its own assessments and these things tend to develop in the immediate aftermath of a strike, so I will not be drawn on casualties or the number of people struck. Qatar, quite rightly, will release that information when it is available. My hon. Friend asks about the international law tests against which this strike must be judged. Those tests are self-defence and imminence, and in any session of the UN Security Council those are the tests that we would expect Israel to be able to satisfy.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is not only on this issue, but on many other issues that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other middle east nations have developed a real niche and leadership in mediation and conflict resolution. Will the Minister look at our own conflict resolution unit and its resources and spend, and double down on how we are working with the Qataris on all their mediation efforts?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question. The strength of our relationship with Qatar on conflict mediation and our own capabilities are an important area of work. I understand deeply how important that is because I was a negotiator in the Foreign Office, as was our National Security Adviser. I have been due a further discussion with my Qatari ministerial counterpart. Regrettably, it has been continually delayed by events in the region, but we hope to have it soon.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Qatar is an ally, and a key negotiator and mediator in Gaza ceasefire talks. Through committing atrocities in Gaza, illegal settlements in the west bank, marching into Syria, and attacking Lebanon, Iran, Yemen and now Qatar, this Israeli Government have proven themselves to be a rogue ally to us and a dangerous neighbour. At what point does the UK draw a line in the sand and call out this Israeli Government for what they are—a danger to peace in the middle east?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his long commitment to these issues. He has heard my condemnation, as well as that of the previous Foreign Secretary, the current Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, of many of the Israeli Government’s actions in relation to Gaza, the west bank and elsewhere. Where we disagree with the Israeli Government, we are clear and forceful in saying so.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Given that Israel continues to act with impunity, what new levers will our Government use to take actions that are within its powers, such as restrictions on travel and trade, air and sea delivery of aid—given that land delivery is so appalling—and in relation to the F-35? We are breaching international humanitarian laws; can we please stop doing so?
Mr Falconer
I do not like to get ahead of the courts on the question of the F-35. There was extensive legal argumentation in the Al-Haq case, which did not find in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Turning to the question of air and sea access to Gaza, both methods have been tried. The UK supported airdrops alongside our Jordanian partners over the summer, such was our desperation to get aid into the strip. However, we cannot escape the fact that airdrops are a pinprick at best, given the overall scale of need. There is an aid operation that works and has a track record, which is the United Nations operation.
Mr Falconer
Sea was also tried, particularly during the late period of President Biden, but was not found to be an effective mechanism for getting aid in. Where we can get aid in—even in small amounts—we will do so, but I cannot pretend from this Dispatch Box that any methods other than the land routes and UN support can reach the scale that is required to meet the need.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am pleased to see the Minister back at the Dispatch Box, although I am not sure whether he is equally pleased to come back to the Chamber once again to answer questions about the illegal actions of the Israeli Government. We have a situation in which one of our allies has unlawfully attacked another of our allies. Given that we are rightly standing with the Qataris, is it not time we recognised that because of their actions in Doha and their continuous starvation and murder of innocent civilians in Gaza, this right-wing Israeli Government and this extreme right-wing Israeli Prime Minister are no longer allies of ours?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about my reappointment. I recognise the force of what he has said about Israeli politics; it is not appropriate for one Foreign Minister to comment on the internal politics of another country, but from the sanctions I announced from this Dispatch Box in June, the House can see the strength of this Government’s feeling about—for example—the rhetoric of Mr Smotrich and that of Mr Ben-Gvir. It has been deeply disheartening to see that rhetoric repeated over the course of the summer, but where we can, we demonstrate in the strongest possible way the strength of our feeling on these questions.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The events that took place earlier this week in Jerusalem, and yesterday, prove that the two extremes in this conflict have no interest in peace. Hamas benefits from the violence, and the right wing of the Israeli Government also profits as it seeks to expand Israel’s territory and subject the Palestinian people. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and amplify the points that he made.
Following yesterday’s events, Trump and the American Administration appear to be as annoyed with Israel as the rest of the world are, so is it now time to call Israel’s bluff through the United Nations? Is it not time to seek the engagement of blue helmets or some similar force, to enable us to say, “We, as an international community, have people on the ground. Don’t you dare fire into that area. Let us now trigger peace talks.” Without that catalyst, those two extremes will just continue, along with the performative merry-go-round of “Here we go again”, condemnation, and another statement or urgent question. I fear that in three or four years’ time, there will be rubble in Gaza, the Israeli Government will be even more of a rogue Government, and we will be no further forward.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the risks in Gaza—we have seen that rubble grow. The British Government would support international forces going into Gaza with the agreement of the parties. In response to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), I spoke about my own experience of the limitations on peacekeeping forces where there is no peace to enforce. We are depressingly clear-eyed about the continuing intent on both sides to continue conducting violence, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman has described.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In the past month alone, Israel has bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen. Yesterday, for the first time, it bombed Qatar. What is the Government’s legal assessment of the strikes on Qatar, and do they consider them to be a violation of international law?
Mr Falconer
We utterly condemn the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, as the House heard from the Prime Minister this morning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) set out, the international legal tests are to do with imminence and self-defence. There will be a session of the UN Security Council, and it will be for Israel to demonstrate how its actions are consistent with those tests.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Today of all days, after an illegal attack on peace brokers Qatar, it is shocking to see the UK roll out the red carpet for President Herzog, who has dehumanised suffering Palestinians and incited violence against civilians. The Minister’s Government are being seen to pander to politicians who flout international law. He rightly calls for a ceasefire; when will he call what is happening in Gaza a genocide?
Mr Falconer
President Herzog is in the UK on a private visit, so I would not characterise the visit as one for which the red carpet has been rolled out. I reiterate that so many colleagues on the Government Benches, and I am sure colleagues on the Opposition Benches as well, are rightly very conscious of the urgency of helping people out of Gaza, ensuring that aid gets in, and ensuring that there is a ceasefire. President Herzog is the Head of State; he is not a functional part of the Government. He is an important conduit for raising those concerns. This morning, among other things, the Foreign Secretary sought to ensure greater support from the Israeli Government for getting children with injuries, and students, out of Gaza. These are difficult, practical matters on which we are focused. I understand that some Opposition Members would perhaps prefer that we did not conduct such talks, but the Government and I are focused on the practical problems of helping people in Gaza, and the Foreign Secretary has already raised them with the President this morning.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
This morning on Radio 4, an Israeli politician, Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, offered no apology for the Israeli attacks on Qatar and could not explain what makes Israel exempt from international law and able to act with impunity. How does the Minister justify the genocidal comments of President Herzog? These individuals must be held accountable. What we are seeing is not diplomacy—it is shameful complicity. Does the Minister agree that today’s meeting with Herzog should never have taken place?
Mr Falconer
I set out the position in relation to President Herzog’s visit just a minute ago. I am not familiar with the Israeli politician in question, but I can say that the UK considers international law to be binding on all states.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Despite the atrocious terrorist attack in Jerusalem, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she says that blowing up the enemy’s negotiators does not exactly suggest an interest in a negotiated solution. However, I would like clarification on the Government’s position on recognition of a Palestinian state. On 1 September, the then Foreign Secretary said that he proposed to recognise a Palestinian state, but that Hamas would not benefit from it, because they would have to be disarmed. Does that mean that Hamas must be disarmed before recognition, or will recognition go ahead, as seems to be the case, whether Hamas are disarmed or not?
Mr Falconer
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary then and now have been clear that the Prime Minister will make a determination in advance of the UN General Assembly high-level week, in accordance with the language set out in the statement of July. The right hon. Member makes important points about what the previous Foreign Secretary said about Hamas. We must remember that Hamas are not in favour of two states; they are in favour of one state from the river to the sea, and that is not the position of the British Government, and nor is it should we take the decisions outlined in July.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
We all want to see peace, the hostages returned and an end to the man-made famine in Gaza, but this attack on a sovereign nation so closely tied to the peace talks undermines all that. It is as awful as it is counterproductive, so what can we do to ensure that the pursuit of peace is more than just lip service for the Netanyahu Government?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has been a persistent advocate on these questions, and I look forward to continuing to answer his questions from the Dispatch Box. He should not, though, be more pessimistic about the prospects of continued mediation and the Qataris themselves, particularly given that they are very much on the closest edge to this issue. We will continue to support them in their efforts. They are vital and, for all the reasons we have discussed this afternoon, the only way through.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We keep talking about a ceasefire, but how can one be achieved if one side is intent on killing the negotiators from the other? Attacking peace negotiators is simply reprehensible and undermines any possibility of the only thing—dialogue—that has any chance of bringing a resolution to the horrors in Gaza. It is not the action of a state seeking peace; it is the action of a rogue state operating with impunity completely outside international law, crossing red line after red line. I ask the Minister again: given that repeated crossing of new red lines, what action will he match his condemnation with? Will he stop all arms sales, all military co-operation, all intelligence-sharing and all defence deals, current and future, with Israel? Will he sanction Netanyahu and all officials complicit in the war crimes and genocide in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I have set out already in this session our condemnation of the strikes, the sanctions taken against extremist figures in the Israeli Government and the other measures we have taken. In relation to action that follows from the strike on Doha, the Foreign Secretary will shortly be in touch with her E3 colleagues, and we hope that there will be a Security Council session this evening.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I do pray that one day he will come to the Dispatch Box with good news for us, to be frank. In my surgery at Oxgangs library on Saturday, a UK-Palestinian woman came to see me. She brought date cookies, which had been freshly made by her mother. I had hoped to save one for you, Mr Speaker, but it proved not to be possible. She spoke passionately, and she was really concerned about the visit of the Israeli President to the UK. I spoke about what the Government have been doing and actions that I have supported that I believe have saved lives. But with what we have seen in Qatar, I think Netanyahu has made a fool of us, and I fear that he will continue to make a fool of us. Is it time to change direction to avoid this happening again—to avoid us taking a stand, demanding a ceasefire and Netanyahu just laughing at us?
Mr Falconer
I am disappointed that my hon. Friend’s constituent did not reserve a cookie for me, but I am grateful for the important question that she asks. For the reasons I set out before, it is important that we continue to engage directly with the Israeli Government, particularly on questions such as the evacuation of vulnerable people from Gaza, on which Israel’s co-operation is essential for any further progress.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Several of our partners in the region—in north Africa and the middle east—have expended a great deal of political capital in trying to achieve a rapprochement with Israel in recent years. The Minister will be aware, for example, of Morocco and its work and leadership in achieving the Abraham accords. What does he think this attack has done to them, and what confidence can they have that Israel is now truly embarked on a quest for peace in the region?
Mr Falconer
Even in advance of the events yesterday, nations in the region that had taken the step of signing the Abraham accords were signalling disquiet, most obviously and signally the United Arab Emirates, which released an important statement on this question. I will not seek to speak for our Arab allies, but I am sure that they will be looking at the events yesterday with great concern, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the number of statements that have issued from the region over the last 24 hours.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
A man-made famine in Gaza, increased settler violence in the west bank, and now this attack on sovereign Qatar: I fear that these are not the actions of an Israeli Government committed to peace. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend urge the Foreign Secretary to speak to our friends and allies and find out what more we can do to pile concrete pressure on the Israeli Government to get round the table and seek that ceasefire that we so badly need?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to these issues, and I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary is, practically as we speak, in consultations with friends and allies about what further steps we might take.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I have said this before, but so many constituents from Yeovil—some as young as 11—have told me that they are so frustrated that Britain is not doing more. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government are doing all they can to make sure that these strikes do not break down the peace process completely and that enough aid gets into Gaza now?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman’s young constituents are absolutely right, and I can reassure them that we are doing everything we can to try to ensure that the mediation continues, that progress towards a ceasefire is made and, of course, that aid gets into Gaza.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Blessed are the peacemakers, or so we are told—so it seems particularly wicked that Israel can deliberately target the country that is doing more to promote peace than any other in the region. Is the tragedy of the middle east not that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Israelis in Israel are governed by deeply unpopular extremists who have no interest in peace, on either side? After this week’s appalling murder at a bus stop in Jerusalem, the Israeli Government imposed collective punishment on the villages where those terrorists came from, removing hundreds of work permits and proceeding to start demolishing many homes. Does Netanyahu’s decision to bomb Qatar not prove beyond doubt that he does not care about the hostages, that they are collateral damage as much as any Palestinian child, and that Israel is now a rogue state? Must not the UK put in place severe sanctions against this rogue state to prove our word?
Mr Falconer
I am glad to be answering questions from my hon. Friend again, as he has been a persistent advocate on these matters. There is deep concern about events. The attack in Jerusalem was horrific, as I said to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The developments in the west bank, both over the summer and before, are deeply concerning, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising them. We will continue to keep all measures under review, as he would expect. We have taken far-reaching actions, with three waves of sanctions targeted in particular on violent settlers. We will continue to keep such options under review as developments proceed.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Let us look at the facts behind Israel’s strike. We have a bunch of terrorists who have been sitting in the safety of Qatar for years, organising and financing acts of terror, including the mass murder of civilians in Israel this week, and boasting about their involvement in it. Is it not an advance that those people are eliminated and it is made clear to them that they will face the consequences of the terror that they organise? Is showing them that they will be pursued and punished, and that they will not win, not more likely to drive them to the peace table than to continue their acts of terror?
Mr Falconer
We have condemned the strike, and I do so again. It violates Qatar’s sovereignty. Obviously, the question of the facts of the strike will now be contested, and, as I said earlier, the Qatari Government are releasing those facts as they conduct a full investigation. Regardless of anybody else, there were Qatari officials killed in the strike, and it was a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty. For that reason alone, it is worth condemning.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
What security information is now shared with Israel? Is the information collected by the more than 600 Royal Air Force flights over Gaza being used to guide the Israeli bombardment of buildings in Gaza City and other places? Are we still continuing security co-operation with a country that has bombed almost every neighbouring state over the past year?
Mr Falconer
For reasons the House will understand, I will not give a lengthy commentary on security and intelligence matters, but I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not provide any information to aid in targeting strikes in Gaza in the way that he described.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a seasoned diplomat, does the Minister recognise that there is a danger that we are holding Israel to a different standard? When the Americans reached out into Pakistan to snuff out Osama bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, we were taking them to the bar; when Israel reaches out with a precision decapitation strike on the leadership of Hamas, we want to take it to the bar of the international court.
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman does make me feel rather seasoned, as I was in Pakistan at that time. As I said earlier, the tests in international law are self-defence and imminence. Not every state agrees on the thresholds for those tests, but it is the expectation of the British Government with all our partners and allies—indeed, with every state—that they demonstrate how they are complying with international law regardless of who they are.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am pleased to have the Minister’s confirmation that, despite yesterday’s egregious actions by Israel, Qatar will continue its commitment to pursue the peace that we all long for in the middle east. To that end, the Government have said that they would commit to recognising a state of Palestine before the United Nations General Assembly if Israel failed to meet certain conditions. Has Israel failed to meet those conditions, and will the Government recognise Palestine as a matter of urgency?
Mr Falconer
The Prime Minister will make a determination on the question in advance of the high-level week of the General Assembly. That is not long now. The whole House can see the development of events in the region and, indeed, the language we set out in July. I do not wish to get ahead of the Prime Minister before he makes that determination.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My Lib Dem colleagues and I have repeatedly called on the Government to introduce further sanctions on Israel; we called for sanctions on Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, and now we call for sanctions on Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Cabinet. Does the Minister agree that those are the people who are responsible for creating a famine in Gaza and continuing the killing of innocent civilians?
Mr Falconer
As we discussed last week, the circumstances of the famine in Gaza are horrifying and it is absolutely obvious that the restrictions on aid into Gaza, for which the Israeli Government are responsible, are contributing very significantly indeed to those circumstances. The Israeli Government have raised methodological concerns with the IPC judgments. Those concerns arise from the fact that there is not free access into Gaza. We stand by the IPC and the judgments it has made. It is clear that the restrictions of the Israeli Government, on which I have been clear at the Dispatch Box innumerable times and have seen for myself at the border, are responsible for those circumstances.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have had a number of ceasefires historically. Each one was violated by the Israeli Government. The recent attack in Qatar is a clear example that the Israeli Government are not interested in a ceasefire; they are interested in a genocide, taking over the whole of the Gaza strip and west bank—we see that in their reactions and in what they say in the public arena. None of the levers that we have spoken about in this House seems to have had any impact. It is like a toothless tiger: we say we are going to apply this pressure and that pressure, and nothing seems to be done. This blatant, unlawful attack on Qatar requires punishment. Does the Minister not think that the immediate, unconditional recognition of a state of Palestine is a form of punishment and would go further to a ceasefire than what we are talking about?
Mr Falconer
I set out in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) the process by which we will make the determination on the recognition points that we set out in July. That point is very soon; the high-level week of the UN General Assembly is just weeks away. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, I am sure, to question me and other members of the Government after the Prime Minister has made his determination.
I do not think it is right that we should think of recognition as a punishment. If that is indeed the determination that we make, it will be a reflection of our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution. It is unlikely in and of itself to ameliorate the horrifying famine and the many other sources of agony that flow to the Palestinian people at the moment. That does not mean that, if the Prime Minister makes that determination, it may not be the right thing to do, but the House should not think that it will necessarily bring any immediate improvement in the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Qatar has used its good offices for diplomatic negotiations for many years. Taliban representatives secretly arrived in Qatar 15 years ago and subsequently attended peace conferences in Japan, Germany and France. If the UK and our allies let these strikes by the Netanyahu-led Government go, they could be a precedent for strikes on other intermediaries. How are the Government encouraging our allies to introduce sanctions on members of the far-right Israeli Government?
Mr Falconer
I have set out the consultations with our partners that will be happening today and, I am sure, over coming days. The hon. Gentleman is right about the role of Qatar over the years, including in the Taliban talks that took place there for some time, and we have discussed already the questions under international law about states striking other states.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
In respect of sanctions, the Minister will be aware that I asked the then Foreign Secretary last week whether he would make sure that the UK has no involvement in the proposed Elbit contract, either commercial or governmental, that there is absolutely no use of the Akrotiri air base in Cyprus to the advantage of the Israeli military, and that there is absolutely no trade with the illegal settlements in the west bank. Can the Minister confirm that the position remains the same following the change of guard, and that he will make sure it is followed through?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that the British Government’s position remains as set out by the then Foreign Secretary last week.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the House in its condemnation of the attacks against civilians in Jerusalem this week.
The impunity and military support afforded to the state of Israel over the past 77 years, and as it carries out the ongoing genocide in Gaza and wider Palestine, has emboldened its leaders to launch assaults in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Tunisia and now Qatar, killing thousands and forcing millions to flee their homes across the region. Is the Minister not concerned that the British Government’s continued support for a rogue state perpetrating repeated violations of international law will lead to Israel invading other countries, and undermine the UK’s security and credibility on the world stage? Does he agree that Qatar has a right to defend itself against this unprovoked illegal attack?
Mr Falconer
I have set out our position in relation to a whole range of Israeli Government actions with which we disagree, so I am not sure I would characterise our position in the way that the hon. Gentleman did. I have already set out our position on the relevant questions of international law as far as I am able.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General will publish any advice that he or the Government have received on whether there have been breaches of international law during the conflict in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
That is more properly a question for the Attorney General. I think there has been some correspondence between him and his shadow, but I will revert to the Attorney General’s latest position on that question.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We have witnessed the Israeli army massacre over 60,000 people in Gaza, 19,000 of whom were children. The blood-soaked tentacles of the Israeli army are now reaching closer to home, especially in my case. Yesterday afternoon in Doha, my niece and her daughter were having a lovely time together in a library when the Israeli army, which this Government fail to condemn for committing genocide, dropped a bomb two or three streets away from where they were. The building shook, and there was smoke everywhere. My niece’s baby is still asking, “Will it happen again?”, so I ask the Minister: will it happen again, and what will this Government do, beyond saying empty words? When will we completely stop every single arms sale to Israel, impose economic, political and social sanctions, and use all our power to get desperately needed aid into Gaza?
Mr Falconer
I think I have answered questions on arms and sanctions already in this session. I want to be clear: we have condemned these strikes, and we do not want to see them again. We are discussing these matters with our allies, including, we hope, at the UN Security Council this evening. We will no doubt keep the House updated on how those discussions go.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his very confident replies to the questions, and wish him well in his role. These things are never easy, but the Minister has done quite well.
The loss of life is, of course, regrettable in all situations. This House must also condemn the callous murder of six innocent Israelis, including two rabbis and women, on the day before the attack in Doha. Does the Minister acknowledge that the UK must share pertinent intelligence with Israel to ensure that targeted attacks take place, so that Israel can cut the head off the Hamas snake? Then, and only then, can there be peace for Israel and Gaza, the Hamas threat having been targeted and eradicated effectively.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. I have set out clearly our absolute opposition to Hamas on a whole range of questions, but I have also set out our understanding of international law, why we condemn these strikes, and why we do not want to see them repeated.
Russian Drones: Violation of Polish Airspace
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the violation of Poland’s airspace by Russian drones.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
This is my first UQ in the House, and this is a very serious topic to be discussing. Last night, as we know, Poland shot down multiple Russian drones that had entered its airspace. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are subject to a barbaric attack every evening, but this is an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace; indeed, it went deep enough for Warsaw airport to be closed. I thank the Polish and NATO air defence forces for responding rapidly and effectively to protect the alliance. The areas affected were regions on the border of Belarus and Ukraine. Poland temporarily closed its airspace and some airports, and emergency alarms were issued for the regions affected, but airspace and most airports have now reopened.
Russia’s actions are absolutely and utterly reckless, unprecedented and dangerous. This serves to remind us of President Putin’s blatant disregard for peace, and of the constant bombardment that innocent Ukrainians face every day. In response, Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has announced that Poland will invoke NATO article 4, which allows any ally to consult others when it believes that its territorial integrity, political independence or security are threatened. The Prime Minister has been in contact with Prime Minister Tusk to make absolutely crystal clear the UK’s support for Poland, and that we will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. The Defence Secretary is meeting E5 counterparts today, and will discuss what additional support we can provide, including to reinforce Ukraine and strengthen NATO. We stand in full solidarity with our ally Poland.
We condemn this action. We say to Russia: “Your aggression only strengthens the unity of NATO nations. It only strengthens our solidarity in standing with and beside Ukraine. It reminds us that a secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine.” With our allies and partners, and through UK leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. May I begin by expressing our total solidarity with the people of Poland? The Opposition stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in support of our strong NATO ally. Poland is a great nation, and a great friend of Britain. Our thoughts are with its people, and we fully support all efforts to rally our NATO allies and ensure that Poland’s invocation of article 4 is responded to as swiftly as possible. This is an unprecedented violation of Polish and NATO airspace that must be met with total condemnation and a robust response. So must the latest bombings of Ukraine, as Russia continues to target civilians and conduct an unprovoked war of aggression, without any regard for human life.
What, if any, judgment have the Government been able to form of the precise motivation for this drone incursion? If this was designed to test NATO’s resolve, will Putin not have already seen how strong the resolve is to stand united against this aggression? We understand that Dutch F-35s were directly involved in supporting the Polish military response, and that fighters from other NATO nations may have been scrambled. Is it not sobering that the F-35s from the Netherlands followed us in rotating air support for Poland, so if this incursion had occurred just weeks ago, RAF Typhoons could have been directly involved?
On the specifics of our joint NATO response, can the Minister say more about what invoking article 4 means in practical terms for the UK and our allies, and what the next steps are? Importantly, what discussions have the UK Government had with our US counterparts on these developments? Above all, given that this incident involved the use of lethal Russian drones against a fellow NATO member, what further steps are the Government now considering in order to constrain Russia’s ability to threaten our closest allies, and to provide further support to Poland? Finally, in the light of the Norway deal, the Minister will be aware that one of the largest ever defence export deals concluded under the previous Government was the sale of ground-based air defence to Poland. In the week of DSEI, does that not show why such industrial collaboration with our allies is important, not just economically, but when it comes to defending our close allies?
There are those who may question the nature of the Russian threat or the need to significantly increase defence spending, but these events should leave nobody in any doubt that the threat extends beyond Ukraine, and that we must therefore continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, Poland and all our NATO allies.
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his response, and his bipartisan support on this really serious issue. What is NATO article 4? For clarity, article 4 is a consultation mechanism. If an ally perceives that its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, it can invoke article 4. That is what Poland has done. Discussions will then take place in the North Atlantic Council, NATO’s senior political body, in which the UK will, of course, be involved.
I mentioned the status of the attacks. Poland stated that the drones were part of a co-ordinated Russian attack on targets across the border in Ukraine, but that does not in any way, shape or form excuse those attacks. They are an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace on an unprecedented scale.
I agree that our industrial collaboration with our allies and partners is essential, as we and NATO move forward, and as our partners and allies’ relationships move forward, to making sure that we are prepared in every way for an escalation, or an existential crisis, should it come.
In our response to Ukraine, we are doing a huge amount to lead our allies and partners. As we speak, the Secretary of State for Defence is with the E5, talking about the coalition of the willing, and he has talked to Polish representatives already. We are leading the way in that coalition—on its formation, structure and how it will deploy, should it need to, if peace ever comes to Ukraine.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Is this not another example that what Russia really believes in is the complete annihilation of Ukraine? It does not care what collateral damage it does elsewhere. I believe that sending drones across into Poland was a deliberate move by the Russians. I welcome the response from Poland and NATO, but do we not need to talk about ramping up industrial co-operation for Ukraine, so that it gets more and better munitions and equipment more quickly, and ramping up sanctions? With the Budget coming up, we need to consider how we ramp up defence expenditure, and further increase it beyond the recent targets set.
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his support for defence. I completely agree that the Ukrainians are undergoing a serious violation of international law by a barbaric and reckless leader in Russia. They are experiencing bombing, drone attacks, ballistic missile attacks, which cannot be heard, subterfuge, sabotage, hostage taking, and the huge, large-scale kidnapping of children. Air raids go off every night in Ukraine, in a way that is reminiscent of world war two. The wailing of those sirens alone will have a psychological impact that will last long after any war finishes.
Why is this happening today? It is because of Putin’s barbaric, unprovoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign state. We must continue to do the maximum to support Ukraine and encourage its allies and partners. We have done a significant amount. The House may recall that at the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, we launched a 50-day drive to deliver more for Ukraine. Fifty days on, we have 5 million rounds of munitions; 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles; 2,500 uncrewed systems; 30 vehicles; and 200 electronic warfare and defence systems. On top of that, we had a £70 million plan to provide 350 air defence missiles, and, finally, £150 million to provide air defence and artillery. We are at the leading edge, and have been for a long time, in supporting Ukraine, and we will continue to be, long into the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Overnight, Poland faced down an unprecedented violation of NATO and Polish airspace—the latest act of belligerence by a Russian dictator hell-bent on recreating the Russian empire. This is a stark reminder that history cannot repeat itself. The drones were part of Russia’s latest large-scale assault on Ukraine, an assault in which 450 drones were launched. We thank the Polish air force for protecting the NATO alliance, and we stand with our allies. No matter what President Trump believes, it is clear that Putin is not stopping. He is not considering peace; he is testing NATO’s limits. A line has been crossed, and we must collectively stand up to this aggression.
The Government must take tangible action. Will the Minister take forward the Liberal Democrat proposals to end the import of products using Russian oil that have been processed in third countries; stop UK companies shipping or insuring Russian liquefied natural gas; and push for a further cut to the oil price cap? As Tusk said this morning,
“Actions speak louder than words.”
The strongest action we could take would be to seize the frozen Russian assets across the UK. Will the Minister commit to doing that today?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and for her support for defence. She brought up a really valuable point: those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. This was an unprecedented attack, and an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace. We are working exceptionally hard with the Polish to ensure that they, and indeed our broader NATO alliance, have everything they need. We already have significant sanctions on Russia. There is work going on between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office looking at how we can move those forward. We will update the House in due course.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The appalling attack on Ukraine and the violation of Polish airspace yesterday simply highlight the increasing and devastating use of drones in modern warfare. I have been contacted by Hartlepool constituents today, expressing their anxiety and fear about what this might mean for our shores. Will the Minister share the Government’s plans to ensure that the UK’s drone and air defence capabilities meet the challenge of the changes we are seeing in modern warfare?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He will know that I am passionate about the need for us to increase our uncrewed systems portfolio. We have already committed, in the defence industrial strategy and the strategic defence review, to create an uncrewed centre of excellence. That will help us to rewrite our doctrine and concept, but also to integrate drones back into the military and ensure we have a high-low mix of fifth and sixth generation capability, massed with low-end uncrewed systems. Every night, night on night, we have seen an increase in drone attacks on Kyiv and other cities, from Dnipro to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson and back again. They are increasing on an unprecedented scale. Some could argue that Putin has been emboldened recently, but we are seeing an increase and we must do everything we possibly can to support the Ukrainians.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s statement on our support for Poland. Of course we have to support Poland; it is quite right that we should do so.
May I return the hon. Gentleman to the main issue here, which is Russia’s intense bombing attacks on Ukraine? I recently came back from Ukraine. Every night in Kyiv, Lviv and other towns, people are being killed by this brute. This is just an example of what is going on across the border on a greater scale. This question remains for us. Have the Government really made overtures to the US President to say that the time is over for constant statements that say that we may do something, we will do something and we will have sanctions? Surely, we now have to get the US to massively up the level of sanctions. That is what Russia fears. Also, European nations must be told that they cannot buy any more oil or gas that has been run through India or wherever. That has to stop. We have to make that work. And we have to make sure that, at the end of it all, Russia pays a penalty right now and understands that. Will the British Government please take the opportunity, when the US President comes over, to say, “Enough is enough. Please act and get this thing done”?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for his stalwart support on both defence and foreign affairs. Our sanctions programme has been pretty impressive to date. I can almost guarantee that when the US President comes over, there will be discussions on a whole range of topics and that Ukraine will probably be central, alongside other issues within the UK.
Imposing a penalty on Russia is exactly what we have done in a bipartisan way. When the previous Government were in office, we led the way on equipment going into Ukraine. We are continuing to do that. We have seen a huge uplift in the amount of resources going to Ukraine, financially and in terms of weapons, but also, importantly, in industrial build across Europe. That is not just in the UK, but across all our European nations. Industry is required to maintain the pace and scale of the conflict, which I think has caught people out in the past.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Following on from the question by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the reality is that Putin has become emboldened since he met President Trump. No longer is there pressure for an immediate ceasefire, only that we get to a long-term, distant peace arrangement that, as we all know, will never happen. The threat of further sanctions from the US, which Putin was really frightened about, has now apparently been taken off the table. When President Trump comes over here, will my hon. Friend engage with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to try to put pressure on President Trump to say we should recognise that the one thing that can be done to get President Putin to back off and properly look at a ceasefire is further sanctions from the US, to marry those put on by ourselves and our European colleagues?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is the third person to speak about sanctions; it absolutely has sunk in, and we will discuss it with our cross-Government colleagues in due course. I would not underestimate the ability of the Americans to act—it is down to the American people and the American Government to decide, but I would not underestimate that ability over the short, medium or long term. One of the key points of having a US visit of such a level is that it will give us the opportunity to discuss these issues in person and to really highlight what is important to us. It speaks to the importance of being in the tent to have those discussions for us as a Government, and for everybody and every party in this wonderful place.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Let us be clear: this is no accidental violation of Poland’s—or NATO’s—airspace. As NATO members, one could argue that it is actually a violation of our own airspace. Is it not clear that Russia is testing NATO’s resolve, and that Putin will ruthlessly exploit any real or perceived diplomatic, military or political weakness? I get the Minister’s point on calibration and proportionality, but what does a robust response mean? Following on from an earlier question from the Labour Benches, given that there are many Russian ships in the English channel and around these isles from which drones could easily be deployed, what about UK air defences?
Al Carns
The intelligence agencies will be able to provide the best analysis of this attack, so I will not jump to conclusions on the intentions behind it. It has, however, been clear for several years now that there has been consistent testing of NATO as a whole, whether that is 20,000 cyber-attacks from hostile states in the past two years or the use of chemical or radiological weapons on UK soil, to name just two of the litany of incidents. I fully support the Ukrainian strategy of fight and talk to keep the pressure on the Russians to ensure that they come to the table. I fully support a US-led peace process, but the Ukrainians’ view must be central, and they must lead it from their perspective.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad to hear the Minister’s resolve and, indeed, the whole House’s united condemnation and shock at these outrageous attacks. The UK must stand firm with NATO, with Poland and with Europe, and we must increase our support for Ukraine and its neighbours including Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and elsewhere. Following on from the previous question, what steps has the Minister taken to review our defences in the light of recent events?
Al Carns
First, we are fully in support of our NATO allies and, of course, our Baltic allies. The last time article 4 was invoked was 2022, when it was invoked by many of our Baltic allies on the invasion of Ukraine. It has been invoked eight times, with the most recent instance, obviously, being this morning. I am not going to give the details of our air defence operational capabilities here, but we do have a suite of capabilities. If Members read the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy, they will see that there is a large proportion on industrial rebuild here in the UK and supporting our allies with joint ventures and partnerships to re-establish the military industrial base of Europe in these unprecedented times, and central to that will be air defence.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I understand that Ukraine holds approximately €190 billion in frozen Russian assets. Press reports today suggest that there is a level of flexibility in the stance on releasing them, as long as there are some legal guarantees from the European Union around the risks that may be faced. Are the Government supporting the European Union to unlock this opportunity, which could help to support efforts in Ukraine?
Al Carns
We support the ability to get resources into Ukraine in any way, shape or form. I will raise that specific matter with the Home Office and our cross-Government colleagues and get back to the hon. Gentleman on the answer.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Our constituents with links to Poland will understandably be terrified by last night’s development, but they will also be reassured that the Polish people, like the Ukrainian people, do not stand alone. NATO’s supreme headquarters confirmed that last night’s mission involved not just Polish air defence, but Dutch F-35s, German Patriot batteries and Italian early warning aircraft. The EU High Representative has talked about increasing its involvement in the East Shield project, which we are already part of. Will the Minister update this House on his conversations with our European counterparts about last night and on what more we will do to stand with the Polish and Ukrainian people?
Al Carns
First, I would like to thank both Polish and NATO air defence forces for disrupting the attack that took place yesterday. As Members will know, the Defence Secretary is with the E5 at the moment, and they have discussed this specific issue. Looking forward, we are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with the Polish.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I recently visited the Royal Air Force in Poland during its recent deployment in NATO’s enhanced air policing mission during Op Chessman, where I saw at first hand RAF Typhoons scrambled to intercept a Russian signals intelligence Coot-A—Poland feels the threat from Russia much more keenly than I think we appreciate in this House. In the drones debate last week, I raised with the Minister that we have a paucity of counter-UAS capability. While we obviously do not face the risk that Poland does or have plans such as the East Shield, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that our own territory, critical infrastructure and military bases—both here and overseas—possess an organic capability that can be brought to bear?
Al Carns
We absolutely need to have an integrated air defence system with our European and NATO allies, and we must look after our critical national infrastructure; that is why the SDR and the defence industrial strategy really have a focus on industrial rebuild, part of which is air defence. We are also working with our Ukrainian allies to learn best practice from them and pull that back to the UK.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only is the shocking escalation of hostilities by Russia a deliberately provocative act, but it threatens all NATO states, and an iron-clad response is now required. Will the Ministry, with our NATO partners, be unequivocal in reminding Russian and Belarusian counterparts of NATO article 5, and that an attack on Poland is an attack on all NATO partners, including the United Kingdom?
Al Carns
We will absolutely do that. It is worth noting that articles 4 and 5 are not linked; nevertheless, we will be going all out to remind all our allies and partners of the severity of the situation and, of course, the continuing barbaric nature of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to highlight and explain to the citizens of our country what our obligations are to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and all our NATO allies under article 5, and the role played by the joint expeditionary force, with the Baltic three, the Nordic five, the Netherlands and the UK?
Al Carns
The hon. Member raises a really important point. One of the biggest impacts on the cost of living across this country is the war between Ukraine and Russia—it is having a second and third-order effect that is affecting everyone in the country. It is really worthwhile reminding our citizens of that, and that if article 5 is invoked, we will have an obligation to defend. That is so important when we look at our foreign policy and where we need to prioritise our resource.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The UK and Poland have a very close defence and security relationship; Poland is, of course, one of our most important European allies. What plans does the Minister have to strengthen this relationship and those with our other allies? Does he agree that we need to do all we can to calmly make clear to our population that the defence of the free world is being tested, and that we need collectively to be resolute in our response?
Al Carns
In 24 years in the military, I have never seen it as fractious or fragile as it is, particularly today. It is on all of us to make sure that the population understands the risk to the geopolitical environment that surrounds us and gives us the standard of living we have in the UK. We are working towards a bilateral defence and security treaty with Poland, which will deepen ties, and an industrial partnership.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I believe that this was a deliberate attack by Putin to test the resolve and resources of NATO and that we will see more in the coming weeks, months and years. Russia was very quick to put out disinformation by pumping the airwaves in the cyber-space. Can we ensure that we are providing all resources to counter disinformation, which is a battlespace on its own, and that we are ramping up against the current threat that Russia is pushing out across NATO countries?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his contribution and support for defence affairs. Some can be quite disparaging about it, but it is worth reminding ourselves that NATO is the most effective military alliance ever seen in history. Its numbers and capacity far outweigh some of our adversaries. One area it has fantastic command capability in is information operations, and as Members of Parliament we can all play our part in that by taking away the messages we have heard today and making sure that our nation and constituents understand the second and third-order effects of potential escalation.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
For many years Banbury has been home to thousands of Polish citizens, who will understandably be very concerned at events over the past 24 hours. Can the Minister reassure them not only that our relationship with Poland is steadfast but that this Government are taking steps to strengthen it in spite of Putin?
Al Carns
Putin’s actions pull NATO together and forge alliances and partnerships, and they focus us in on the barbaric nature of Russia’s aggression. I have worked with the Polish in the past, and we have a great relationship with them. They are increasing defence spending, and there are industrial opportunities there. We also have great cultural ties with Poland. The Polish served in the Air Force in the second world war and all the way through to the latter years. We are fully behind Poland, our allies and partners.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I congratulate and salute the brave aircrew who intercepted this flagrant breach not just of Poland’s airspace but of the international rules-based order. I do not believe for one second that this was some inadvertent mistake. This is classic Russian playbook. Russia was probing NATO in that attack and will continue to probe until it comes up against the resistance that it deems worthy of a change in policy. Russia responds in two ways: one is strength and the other is weakness, and if it sees weakness it will continue. Can the Minister help the House understand what the robust response to this flagrant attack will look like?
Al Carns
As I mentioned earlier, when these incidents take place, it forges and focuses the alliance and takes away any friction, because we create unity of effort, so it is a mismove by Putin to think that it does not make NATO stronger. If we are looking at deterrence, whether by punishment or denial, we see that Ukraine is holding back one of the biggest militaries in the world and that there have been a million casualties, and that the denial is greater NATO unity and focus on the aggressor that is Putin.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
This attack by Vladimir Putin on a NATO member that has been a leader in resisting Russian aggression and supplying Ukraine is a clear escalation and an attempt, as others have said, to probe NATO defences and intimidate the alliance. Can the Minister assure me that the UK and NATO will not be intimidated and that the Government are considering robust military options to stand up to this bully in Moscow? Closer to home, can he assure me that the attacks will confirm the urgency to escalate and accelerate our development of the Type 83 destroyer and the future air defence system so that our country is fully protected in the future?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to defence. He is a stalwart champion of Ukraine and defence as a whole. I have never been intimidated in my life. We as a country will not be intimidated, and neither will NATO. I reiterate that our defence industrial strategy is absolutely critical. Giving weapons to Ukraine is one thing, but building industrial capacity to generate mass is how countries win wars should they be caught up in one. That is why the strategic defence review’s first 70 pages are all about industry.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
In the Minister’s excellent response, he talked about the geopolitical situation. During my time in office, I saw more and more co-operation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. He talked about the emboldening of Putin. Does he share my concern that the recent show of unity at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit in China may well have emboldened Putin? That should be a wake-up call for all western democracies to stand together in defence of their mutual values?
Al Carns
I absolutely agree that we must stand together for those mutual values, whether that is the right to independence, to self-determination, to collective security and so on. Yes, Putin may feel emboldened, but I would argue that his actions today have strengthened and galvanised the alliance. I can guarantee that the discussions with the E5 and NATO that take place will be absolutely focused on Russia, and that drives economic growth and spending on defence, so I would argue that it is not just a shot across the border but a shot in the foot from Putin.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Naish, you seem to have bounced around every seat on the Back Bench. Are you finally comfortable and ready to ask a question?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for moving around. Poland is one of our closest European allies, with a long, shared history. In my region of the east midlands, that is embodied in our large British Polish community, whose roots go back over 80 years. In the light of last night’s attack, what are the Government’s plans to strengthen our deterrence on NATO’s north-eastern flank?
Al Carns
Poland is one of our strongest allies and, interestingly, is building one of the biggest land forces in Europe. Its recapitalisation programme is of a significant scale, because it has a large land border. From my perspective, working with Poland towards a bilateral defence and security treaty is absolutely essential due to the industrial and bilateral benefits it will bring. We stand side by side with the Polish—no questions, no doubts—and we stand absolutely at the centre of NATO defence policy.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituency also has a large Polish community, who have been alarmed to see Russian drones violating Polish airspace. We all know that if Ukraine were to fall to Putin’s aggression, Poland would be next in his sights. How are the Government intending to support Poland in defending its sovereignty, and what steps are the Government taking to strengthen our own security?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution, and I thank the Polish members of her constituency for supporting Poland during these times. We have a multitude of different capabilities in Poland that have rotated through. For example, as mentioned by the Opposition, our NATO enhanced joint air policing stopped just a couple of months ago and was rotated. We also have a light cavalry squadron there working with the Polish and the US. Poland is also a central pillar of the coalition of the willing as we move forward. Everything is done by, with and alongside our Polish allies.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I join the Minister in his condemnation of this clear escalation against our Polish allies. He will know that my constituency has a large Polish diaspora, who are extremely concerned about their country and fearful of further Russian attacks. What assurances can he give the Polish community in my constituency and across the country, and what work will he do across Government to support the Polish community at this difficult time?
Al Carns
The assurance we can give is that NATO is the most effective military alliance of all time, and Poland, the UK and our allies sit central to that. The centrality of the alliance is the best form of deterrence and, therefore, the best form of assurance to both my hon. Friend’s constituents and people across the whole NATO alliance, and it is central to our defence policy as we move forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
President Zelensky has been consistent in his argument that the invasion of his country is just the beginning and that we are all in the crosshairs. He made that argument forcefully—and famously—in the Oval Office. Does the Minister not agree that what has happened with this violation of Polish and NATO airspace completely vindicates President Zelensky?
Al Carns
I have met President Zelensky several times, and I am a keen observer of the conflict as it has moved forward—a million Russian casualties and a 40 km dead zone on the frontline that would reflect any battlefront or frontline from the first world war to the second world war. What is happening there is absolutely atrocious. I am always really clear: deterrence, yes and peace, yes, but appeasement? No.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), I was part of the excellent armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Operation Chessman in Poland earlier this year. I also saw the scrambling of our RAF Typhoon jet and it going up in the sky to check out suspicious Russian air activity. That was a surprise to me, but from speaking to our RAF personnel, I found that it was quite common at the time. From speaking later on to our Polish counterparts, I know that that is what they are facing in Poland; the public there are well aware of the Russian threat. Here in this country, I am not so sure that the British public get quite how serious the threat is. In Poland, they are on the physical frontline, and people in Ukraine are paying the horrible price of Putin’s aggression. Will the Minister reassure the House and the public that the Government are doing all they can to deal with the Russian threat of cyber-attacks and grey warfare on Europe and, indeed, this country?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend brings us to a really important point. We must not alarm the nation and we must not scare the nation, but we must be honest with the nation as to the risks and threats posed towards our defence and, indeed, the citizens of this country. We need to be clear about that. That is why in the strategic defence review we see talk of military intelligence and the review that is going on, because if we are to explain to the population why we are spending more on defence, we must ensure that it is related to those threats. We will explain it clearly—the SDR has stated it—and then we will double down on investment in the defence industry to ensure that we can provide the assurance that we can contribute to NATO in an absolutely above-and-beyond meaningful way.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In November 2022, the hon. Members for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) and for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) and I were in Ukraine with the Defence Committee when there was an onslaught of rockets fired into that country, one of which errantly fell into Poland and killed two Polish nationals. On that day, Poland considered triggering article 4, and today it has clearly done so. In the intervening period of almost three years, there has been a growing reluctance to equip Ukraine to defend its skies and, importantly, to do so from the skies, so while this article 4 meeting of member states will consider how we protect the skies of NATO, will the Minister confirm that he is willing to extend that conversation to how we appropriately and effectively defend the skies of Ukraine?
Al Carns
That is a great question from the right hon. Member, who I know is a stalwart supporter of defence. As we move forward with the strategic defence review and defence industrial strategy, we must ensure that we revitalise our defence industry so that we produce that important mix of high-end systems—high-end air defence—and low-end systems that can be used in an economic mismatch between cheap and high-end systems. Getting that mix right is complicated, but in the defence industrial strategy and the SDR we are intent on ensuring that our British military is equipped with that high and low-end mix of fifth and sixth-generation and mass-produced hardware in due course.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with the Minister when he says that NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, but the reason for that is that, until recently, the commitment of the United States to NATO was never in question. It is in question now because of the nature of the incumbent of the White House. President Putin either has some sort of hold over Donald Trump, about which we do not know, or he successfully flatters him. When President Trump is in the country, can we point out to him in the strongest possible terms that this response by Russia a couple of weeks after rolling out the red carpet for the killer in the Kremlin shows nothing but disrespect to the White House and its occupant?
Al Carns
I thank the right hon. Member for his continued support for defence. The United States has been really clear that it would like European nations to spend more on defence. It obviously has a multitude of different threats that it has to deal with. When the US President comes to the UK—we are in the tent—we are going to sit down with him and discuss these issues in detail.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I put on record my respect for the bravery of the Ukrainian children Vladyslav, Valeriia and Roman who came to Parliament last night to share their stories as survivors of Putin’s war of aggression. Putin’s action over Polish airspace last night was a deliberate move to test NATO’s reaction, and the response must match the moment. Will the Minister please push for a cohesive plan to seize frozen Russian assets and funnel them to the humanitarian mission to support Ukraine’s incredible and inspiring future generation?
Al Carns
My heart goes out to those children and to everyone in Ukraine who is going through this—they have been going through this for several years. I guarantee the hon. Member that discussions are ongoing now about how we can push the system more to pressure Russia into coming towards the peace table.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that industrial collaboration between the UK and Poland is an important part of our relationship. A key part of that is primarily focused on ground-based air defence, and these events surely underline why that is critical to us and our allies. Will he tell us what progress there has been on the joint UK-Poland future common missile programme to create longer-range ground-based air defence for both nations?
Al Carns
I do not have the detail on that industrial partnership; I can write back to the hon. Member in due course. Air defence is critical, as is making sure that we can secure our oceans, subsurface and, of course, land.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is good that there is universal recognition across the House that last night was an attack not just on Polish airspace but on NATO airspace. In terms of the response, may I bring the Minister back to sanctions? We have sanctions on Russian crude oil, although sadly there is at least one NATO country that does not implement them. With regard to refined oil, are we in this country not importing considerable quantities of Russian crude oil that has been refined down? In the recent trade deal with India, was there any attempt to put any restraint on that?
Al Carns
On the latter point, I will engage with my colleagues across Government and look into the detail. Putting pressure on Russia is absolutely our priority to bring it to the peace table in due course, and we are working exceptionally hard to deliver that.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Minister was quite right to describe this violation of Polish airspace as unprecedented, but I am sure he would agree that it is not isolated; in fact, it represents the latest escalation in Russia’s campaign of attacks on central and eastern European NATO allies. Just last year, shopping centres in Vilnius and Warsaw were set on fire, and the leaders of those countries pointed the finger firmly at Russian military intelligence. Just last week, a jet carrying the President of the European Commission suffered a cyber-attack that was initiated by Russia. Russia is clearly not deterred by the current measures in place. Will the Minister outline what we can do as a leading military power in Europe and in NATO to enhance and reinforce the capabilities of our NATO allies who are on the frontline of the confrontation with Russia?
Al Carns
We are doing that right now. The defence industrial strategy, the strategic defence review and the industrial rebuild will ensure that we have the right arms—and enough of them—to reinforce the deterrence and, if called to, to fight and win.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Russian drones over Poland suggest that Putin is testing NATO’s resolve to support its members. Will the Minister push the Prime Minister to urge President Trump and the members of the G7 to produce a cohesive plan to seize the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets held in their countries and funnel that money to the frontline in Ukraine? That money would transform Zelensky’s efforts to repel Putin’s illegal war machine. Will the Government commit to doing that?
Al Carns
The United States is one of our most critical allies, and when the President of the United States visits the UK there will be a multitude of discussions, particularly focused on Ukraine, European security and, of course, NATO.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that we need to take stronger steps to deter Putin? That starts with seizing billions in frozen Russian assets across the UK and using them to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, because Putin has shown that if we give him an inch, he will take a mile.
Al Carns
As mentioned previously, we have to continue to push and pressure Putin to bring him to the peace table, through a whole suite of different capabilities, from providing arms to Ukraine all the way through to sanctions. We will continue to do that.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Russian drones over Poland were tracked by Polish aircraft but also by Dutch aircraft stationed in Poland. That reminds us that four years ago Putin sought a roll-back in NATO deployments from central and eastern Europe. In 2021 Russia outrageously demanded that NATO allies deploy no forces in countries that joined the alliance after 1997. Does the Minister agree that had the US acceded to those demands, we might be seeing devastating consequences in Poland today?
Al Carns
It is so interesting when we talk about deterrence. There are huge multinational NATO exercises that take place every year. I was the chief of staff of the carrier strike group in 2021, on the date the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That was called Cold Response, which was the biggest naval exercise to the High North in several years. We demonstrate to Russia on multiple different occasions how effective the NATO alliance is and, if called to, how it will fight and win.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
May I give my thanks to the Polish and Dutch air crews who were involved in the defence of Poland’s airspace last night? The seats in their jets may have been manufactured and tested in my constituency, at Chalgrove airfield, but that airfield could be demolished thanks to proposals by Homes England to build a new town there. Will the Minister meet me to urgently address that threat to UK national security?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Minister on his elevation, which is well deserved, an on the comment he made about not be intimidated. He speaks for us all in that regard—indeed, I almost feel a poster campaign coming, about standing firm. The incursion of Russian drones into a NATO member nation is a slap in the face for the very idea of NATO and must be dealt with effectively and immediately. What collective discussions will be held within NATO to determine a robust response to the testing of our borders and the resolution to stand fast against Russia?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his question and his support for defence. Discussions in the E5 are ongoing as we speak, and the NAC has sat and will continue to discuss this issue. I can guarantee him that the UK will be at the very centre of those discussions and no one will intimidate this great isle at all.
Points of Order
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that I believe constitutes a breach of the ministerial duty to respond to Members’ correspondence in a timely manner. On 28 November last year, I wrote to the now former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to raise concerns about the absence of legislation requiring service providers to give residents notice before installing large cables on their properties. I have since followed up with the Department on 22 January, 20 March, 28 April, 13 June and 24 July. I have now been waiting for nine months without receiving a substantive reply. I understand that the new Secretary of State is new in her job and I congratulate her for that, but this considerably hinders my ability to represent my constituents and I seek your guidance on how we can get a response.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point of order and for giving advance notice of it. Ministerial correspondence is not a matter for the Chair. However, all hon. Members should be entitled to expect a timely reply when they write to any member of the Government—I see Members on the Treasury Bench nodding in agreement and am sure that they will ensure that the appropriate Minister is made aware and responds to the hon. Member’s request as soon as possible.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House yesterday, during the debate on the Chagos islands Bill. In column 816 of Hansard, I discussed the role of Olivier Bancoult in the relationship with David Snoxell, a previous high commissioner to Mauritius. I said:
“The latter’s pressure on David Snoxell was enormous; he once went to the extent of locking him in his office until they had a proper meeting.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 816.]
I have now checked that with Mr Snoxell and I made a mistake. The background facts are that in early November 2000, David Snoxell asked Olivier Bancoult and his committee to come and see him so that he could discuss with them the High Court judgment allowing them to return to the outer islands. That was a perfectly friendly meeting. Mr Snoxell goes on to say:
“I had several meetings over the next 4 years with him and his committee members. Although Olivier regarded me as not on his side and occasionally denounced me in the press, he never locked me in my office.”
I wanted to correct the record so that all can be satisfied that the truth has been told.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I also thank him for correcting the record in so much detail at the earliest opportunity.
Bill Presented
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Darren Jones, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Emma Reynolds and Secretary Heidi Alexander, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the implementation by the United Kingdom of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 302).
Neurodivergence (Screening and Teacher Training)
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about screening for neurodivergence in children at primary school; to make provision about teacher training relating to neurodivergence; and for connected purposes.
I thank hon. Members across the House for their support, and I thank the right hon. former Member for West Suffolk for bringing forward similar Bills in the past.
School was hard for me, and that is putting it lightly. Dyslexia meant that reading and writing was challenging. Words seemed to float all over the page—in fact, they are doing so right now, so I ask hon. Members to please bear with me through this speech as I am likely to make some mistakes. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder meant that concentrating was a nightmare, with the slightest thing pulling my attention away. I believed that school was not for me, I fell behind, I was bullied and I certainly acted out.
I am not alone in that. Since I started campaigning, I have heard from so many people who struggle, from constituents to celebrities such as Jamie Oliver, who is a great advocate in this area. I wish I could share them all today, but we would be here for many days.
Around one in seven people in the UK have what we might call neurodivergence. It is a non-medical umbrella term describing the ways people’s brains may develop or work differently from the norm. In some ways, we are all neurodivergent to a greater or lesser extent. Neurodivergence is not a weakness, a condition or a flaw—I want to make that crystal clear. In other ways, it is a superpower and you can do anything you want with the right support—I definitely have with what I have done today. We are problem solvers, critical thinkers and fantastic creators, but with those strengths come challenges such as reading, writing, social skills or maths. That does not mean there is anything wrong with us; it just means that we learn and understand things differently, and we might need to be supported in different ways from others.
I was lucky at school, because I was identified and got the support I needed. That is why I am standing here today. That support gave me the confidence to fight for what I believe in. Getting into politics and into this place was certainly not on my agenda at school, but I feel that I have to do all I can to make sure that everyone in communities such as Yeovil and beyond get the help that I had in school, or better.
Despite all the progress that our country has made in recognising and empowering neurodiverse people, and despite our amazing educators working their socks off—believe me, they do—things seem to have got worse in places such as Somerset since I was at school. Our schools are under-resourced, under-supported and local authorities are totally underfunded. We have the phonics screener, but this test does not cover all the areas that neurodiverse people may struggle and need support with, such as attention control or working memory. Evidence also suggests that neurodiverse children can just memorise the words for the test, meaning that their actual needs may be overlooked. That is one of their superpowers! Even when a child’s needs are identified, there is no proper dedicated special educational needs and disabilities training in initial teacher training or continuous professional development programmes. Nor is it there for teaching assistants. Our overworked teaching staff are pretty much just left to get on with it themselves, and that is not good enough.
Some schools manage fantastically, particularly when they are properly funded, but others are struggling. In some ways, this is another of those postcode lotteries we hear so much about. Our children, their families and our teachers deserve better. That is why I am introducing this Bill today. Members will be pleased to know that it is not complicated. In fact, the idea behind it is fairly simple. It is about getting the Government to use their resources and knowledge to bring everyone together to act, so that we can create a system to better identify neurodivergence and support children early on.
What I am proposing can be broken down into three parts. First, we need to define what we are introducing: universal screening, and teaching training on this. Before the legislation can come into effect, the Secretary of State must lay a report before the House that defines neurodivergence. Secondly, we need a programme of universal screening for neurodivergence in primary school age children. This would preferably be a light-touch, teacher-led process. As I have said, we all sit on the spectrum of neurodivergence in some way—no matter what others say—so the screening should not be about labels but about creating a profile of strengths and weaknesses. This will help teachers to identify where all their pupils sit on the spectrum of neurodivergence and the level of support they need, from in-classroom adjustments to more formal referrals.
Finally, we need proper teacher training. The Secretary of State must produce statutory guidance on training for teachers on neurodivergence in initial teacher training and in continuous professional development. This should be for all teaching staff. This training should provide teaching staff with: a clear understanding of neurodivergence, knowledge of how it presents differently in different people, and the tools and resources to support their pupils.
I do not want this Bill to be about forcing labels on young people. That will not help. Again, it is about helping teachers to identify all their pupils’ strengths and weaknesses. The Government will be pleased to know that it is not about forcing costly screeners on schools either. While I have not set out a preference, the Universal Classroom has worked with teachers to create a universal screener that will be free, so this will not break the bank.
Most importantly, this is not about putting more burdens on to our fantastic teachers. I personally believe that teachers do far too much for far too little pay, support or thanks. I urge the Government to look at the National Education Union’s list of 23 admin tasks that teachers should not be doing. This Bill is about empowering teachers to do what they signed up for and care deeply about—namely, educating and supporting all their pupils. To go back to the Universal Classroom screener, it only takes five to 10 minutes per pupil. With the profiles from a screener like that and with better training, all our teachers will have the confidence to make the right adjustments for each child in their class. Even small things such as different paper, extra time or time-out cards can make life-changing differences. I know this only too well.
What I am proposing today is no silver bullet. It must go alongside other changes in education. If the Government would rather take on these measures in their upcoming White Paper or in some other legislation, fine, I do not really care. All that matters is that we get on with it. We have had enough debating and enough promising. Let’s bring everyone together, roll up our sleeves and take the next steps to making education inclusive and accessible for every child.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Adam Dance, Tessa Munt, Ed Davey, Munira Wilson, James MacCleary, Freddie van Mierlo, Ian Roome, Ann Davies, Clive Jones, Lewis Cocking, Juliet Campbell and Vikki Slade present the Bill.
Adam Dance accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed (Bill 303).
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 69 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 364 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 87 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—£2 bus fare scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a scheme to cap the fare for a single bus journey at £2.
(2) Bus operators in England, including private companies, franchisees, and local authorities, may opt into a scheme established under this section.
(3) Service operators under this scheme may receive preferential consideration for the allocation of financial grants under section 23 of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must review the terms of any scheme established under this section every three years.
(5) The Secretary of State may amend a scheme established under this section by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to cap bus fares at £2.
New clause 2—Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes—
“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
New clause 3—Review of impact of bus fares on passenger patronage—
“(1) Local transport authorities must conduct a review of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services within their areas.
(2) Any review must assess—
(a) how fare levels influence ridership trends;
(b) the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of current fare structures;
(c) changes which may improve accessibility and increase patronage; and
(d) the potential benefits to bus patronage of the simplification of ticketing systems.
(3) A local transport authority must complete its first review under this section no later than six months after the passing of this Act, with subsequent reviews conducted at least once every three years.
(4) The results of any review conducted under this section must be made publicly available.
(5) In conducting a review under this section, local transport authorities must consult relevant stakeholders, including public transport users, service operators, community representatives, and any other stakeholders the authority deems relevant.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to conduct regular reviews of the impact of bus fares on passenger patronage of bus services in their areas.
New clause 4—Duty to promote bus services—
“(1) It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.
(2) In fulfilling this duty, authorities may consider—
(a) the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options;
(b) measures to enhance the environmental sustainability of bus services, including but not limited to reducing emissions and supporting greener transport alternatives;
(c) the broader social, economic, and environmental benefits of increasing bus patronage;
(d) the need to reduce road congestion and improve urban mobility;
(e) opportunities to contribute to lower air pollution and reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(f) the provision of affordable and accessible transport that promotes social inclusion;
(g) the need to improve access to employment, education, health, and other essential services.
(3) A relevant authority must publish a report every two years which outlines steps taken to fulfil this duty, including—
(a) progress in making bus services economically competitive and environmentally sustainable;
(b) the effectiveness of policies and measures aimed at increasing bus patronage;
(c) challenges faced in promoting bus services and proposing or implementing solutions; and
(d) plans for future improvements in bus services.
(4) Relevant authorities may consult with any relevant stakeholders, including transport operators, local businesses, and members of the public, which they deem to be expedient for the purpose of fulfilling the duty outlined in this section.”
This new clause would place a duty on authorities to promote bus services in their areas.
New clause 5—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—
“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.
(2) In this section, "relevant authority" includes—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.
(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
(4) The report must also include—
(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;
(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;
(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;
(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;
(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.
(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
New clause 6—Public sector equality duty—
“In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the appropriate place under the heading “Transport” insert—
“A bus company providing services for the carriage of passengers by bus under a public service contract awarded under relevant provisions of the Transport Act 1985 or subsequent legislation.””
This new clause would place bus companies under the public sector equality duty.
New clause 7—Young person’s discount scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a discount on bus fares for people aged between 19 and 25.
(2) Any scheme under this section must provide for a discount amounting to a third of the price of relevant fares.”
This new clause would introduce a discount scheme for young people, providing 19-to 25-year-olds a third off bus fares.
New clause 8—Review of impact of VAT changes on demand-responsive bus services—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of the VAT system on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) whether the current system of granting a zero-rated VAT exemption to public service vehicles with 10 seats or more while subjecting smaller vehicles to VAT on fares—
(i) influences the choice of vehicles used for demand-responsive bus services;
(ii) has any other impact on the provision or operation of demand-responsive bus services,
(b) the potential for VAT exemptions to facilitate the rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including representatives from the intelligent mobility sector, local authorities, bus operators, and public transport users.
(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to support the growth of demand-responsive bus services across the UK.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of current VAT rules on the operation and rollout of demand-responsive bus services.
New clause 9—Free bus travel for unpaid carers—
“The Secretary of State must work with local transport authorities and operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which—
(a) provides free bus travel to those in receipt of carers allowance, and
(b) supports local transport authorities to expand provision for other unpaid carers.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a scheme to provide free bus travel for those in receipt of carers allowance and improve bus provision for carers.
New clause 10—Review of capacity of Bus Centre of Excellence—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—
(a) the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities in establishing and operating franchising schemes under the Act, and
(b) additional resourcing required for this purpose.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of the current operational capacity, staffing levels, and expertise of the Bus Centre of Excellence;
(b) an evaluation of the effectiveness and reach of current training programmes and support services provided to local transport authorities on franchising, and their suitability for authorities able to franchise services under the Act;
(c) an identification of specific additional financial, human, and technological resources required by the Bus Centre of Excellence to adequately deliver comprehensive training and ongoing support for all local transport authorities considering or implementing franchising schemes under the Act;
(d) an analysis of the impact of current capacity limitations on the pace and quality of franchising scheme development and implementation by local transport authorities.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, representatives from the Bus Centre of Excellence, and bus operators.
(4) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any steps to ensure the Bus Centre of Excellence is adequately resourced for its role in supporting bus franchising.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the capacity of the Bus Centre of Excellence to provide training and support to local transport authorities for bus franchising.
New clause 11—Review of the impact of funding cuts on bus services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report detailing the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of changes in bus service provision, including frequency, coverage, and the extent of route reductions;
(b) an evaluation of how funding cuts have affected access to public transport for residents, particularly in rural and low-income areas;
(c) an analysis of the impact on passenger patronage and the financial stability of bus operators and local transport authorities;
(d) a review of the broader social, economic, and environmental consequences of changes in bus service provision due to funding reductions;
(e) recommendations for further actions or policies that may be required to mitigate negative impacts on bus services and ensure their sustainability and accessibility.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including—
(a) local councils and local transport authorities;
(b) bus service operators;
(c) public transport user groups and community representatives;
(d) organisations representing persons with disabilities; and
(e) relevant trade unions and professional bodies.
(4) Any report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps which are to be taken to support bus services and mitigate negative impacts.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impacts of funding cuts to bus services since 2015.
New clause 12—Guidance on the development of franchising schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local transport authorities on the development of a franchising scheme.
(2) Any guidance produced under this section must include specific information or guidance for local transport authorities in—
(a) rural areas;
(b) coastal communities; and
(c) suburban areas.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes.
New clause 13—Power to convene for bus service coordination—
“(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England may convene other agencies and public bodies that have transport functions and obligations for the purposes of coordinating bus services within, to, or from its area.
(2) The power under subsection (1) includes, but is not limited to, the power to convene NHS trusts and other health bodies for the purposes of coordinating bus services with non-emergency patient transport services.
(3) The purpose of convening under this section is to promote the efficient, integrated and accessible provision of bus services across different sectors and to ensure that bus services meet the needs of the communities they serve.
(4) In exercising the power under subsection (1), a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the coordination of transport services with other public services.
(5) Local transport authorities must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the exercise of functions under this section.
(6) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any guidance issued under subsection (5), and
(b) any variation or revocation of that guidance.”
This new clause would empower local authorities to convene other agencies for the purposes of coordinating bus services.
New clause 14—Review of time restrictions on concessionary travel passes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the impact and feasibility of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes.
(2) A review under this section must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current usage patterns of concessionary travel passes and the impact of existing time restrictions on passengers, particularly persons with disabilities and older people;
(b) an evaluation of the potential social, economic, and environmental benefits of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, including impacts on access to essential health services, goods and services, and social activities;
(c) an analysis of the financial implications for local transport authorities and bus operators of removing time restrictions, and potential funding mechanisms to mitigate any adverse impacts;
(d) investigation of passenger volume at different times and regional variation;
(e) recommendations for any legislative or policy changes required to implement the removal of time restrictions.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local transport authorities;
(b) bus operators;
(c) bus users and organisations representing people with disabilities and elderly people; and
(d) any other persons or organisations whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the completion of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of removing time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes (such as “Freedom Passes”).
New clause 15—Rail bus links scheme: proposals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing local rail connections.
(2) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance accompanying the scheme on—
(a) the departmental funding which will be available for the purposes of the scheme;
(b) the qualifying criteria which will be used to assess eligibility for the scheme, which may include, but may not be limited to, insufficiencies in funding, vehicles and equipment, workforce or expertise.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme to increase bus services to railway stations for communities without existing connections.
New clause 16—Bus pass scheme for persons in post-16 education—
“The Secretary of State must work with bus service operators to introduce a scheme, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, which provides a half-price discount on bus fares for persons in post-16 education.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a discount on bus fares for people in post-16 education.
New clause 17—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 21—Fare cap for school-only services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, extend the £3 bus fare cap to school-only services.
(2) Where the £3 bus fare cap is subsequently increased or decreased, an equivalent change applies to the cap for school-only services.”
New clause 22—Minimum bus service standards: review—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
(2) The review conducted under this section must—
(a) take into consideration the different requirements of communities of differing population sizes across England, including rural and urban communities,
(b) explore the regulatory powers and funding arrangements that would be required for Local Transport Authorities to implement guaranteed minimum bus services for every community with more than three hundred residents across England.”
New clause 23—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 24—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 25—Franchising authorities: joint forum—
“(1) When operating a franchise scheme, the franchising authority must establish a joint forum with operators and trades unions.
(2) The purpose of the joint forum is to address bus service staffing and employment issues in the area covered by that franchising authority.”
This new clause would require all local transport authorities that introduce franchising schemes to establish a joint forum with trade unions and operators.
New clause 26—Consultation of trade unions—
“In section 138F of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (6)(f) insert—
(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,”.
This new clause of the Transport Act 2000 would require local transport authorities to consult trade unions when proposing to make an enhanced partnership plan.
New clause 27—National Bus Forum—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a National Bus Forum.
(2) The purpose of the National Bus Forum is to address issues affecting the provision of local bus services at industry-wide and strategic level.
(3) The membership of the National Bus Forum must include—
(a) HM Government,
(b) trades unions,
(c) bus service operators,
(d) local authorities in England, and
(e) any other body or persons as the Secretary of State deems necessary.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Bus Forum whose membership includes unions, operators and local government, in line with a recommendation by the Transport Select Committee.
New clause 28—Review into floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a vote on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the safety of existing floating bus stops and publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a vote debate on the proposals.
New clause 29—Review of the provision of bus services to villages in England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of the level of bus services being provided to villages in England.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must assess—
(a) the change in the level of services to villages since the passing of this Act,
(b) the number of villages in England not served by bus services,
(c) demographic characteristics of villages in relation to the level of bus services available, and
(d) the impact of this Act on the provision of bus services to villages in England.
(3) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local councils and transport authorities.”
New clause 30—Consultation: bus funding formula—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing a proposed bus funding formula for consultation.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the Secretary of State’s rationale for proposing that formula,
(b) an evidence-based assessment of the distributional effect of that formula between various transport authorities in England, and
(c) any alternative funding formulas that the Secretary of State has considered but chosen not to pursue.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a proposed bus funding formula for consultation, including their reasoning, an assessment of its impact on different transport authorities, and details of alternative approaches considered but not adopted.
New clause 31—Poor performance of franchising—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to take over the management of a service where, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there has been a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) the circumstances under which the Secretary of State would take over the management of a service, and how these circumstances are to be identified;
(b) the actions which the Secretary of State may take to redress the failure to deliver the service;
(c) the period of time for which the Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a statement of when or how the Government would intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.
New clause 32—Requirement to consult and notify before service review discussions—
“(1) A local transport authority or bus operator must not enter into formal discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service unless—
(a) notice has been given to parish and district councils affected by the change or withdrawal, and
(b) a period of public consultation has been concluded.
(2) The authority or operator must publish, before giving notice and holding the public consultation—
(a) the date on which formal discussions regarding changes to the service are proposed to commence,
(b) a summary of the reasons why alteration or withdrawal is being considered, and
(c) information on participating in the public consultation or submitting representations on or alternatives to the proposed changes.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities and bus operators to notify relevant councils and initiate a public consultation before entering into discussions regarding the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service.
New clause 33—Duty to promote and increase bus usage—
“(1) A local transport authority must include in its local transport plan a strategy to promote and increase bus usage in its area.
(2) The strategy must—
(a) set out specific, measurable objectives for increasing bus ridership,
(b) establish 2015 as the year against which progress will be assessed,
(c) include measures to encourage modal shift from private vehicles to buses, and
(d) explain how the authority will monitor and report progress.”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to include in their transport strategies a specific plan for increasing bus usage, including measurable objectives and assessment against 2015 as a baseline year.
New clause 34—Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services—
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility, and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality, and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.
New clause 35—Enhanced partnerships: stakeholder forum—
“(1) Every local transport authority in England that has formed an enhanced partnership must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a stakeholder forum to monitor the delivery of the enhanced partnership.
(2) The forum established by subsection (1) must meet at least once every three months, and its membership must include trade unions representing bus workers, passenger groups, and local businesses.
(3) Where two or more local transport authorities are working together in an enhanced partnership scheme, a single forum should be established to meet the duty set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 36—Concessionary travel for 16 and 17 year olds in education or training—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for 16–17 year olds in education or training
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons aged 16 or 17 and who are—
(a) in full-time education, or
(b) undertaking training on a course or programme that has been approved by Skills England.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
New clause 37—Secretary of State duty to ensure services for certain towns—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every town in England is served by bus services which—
(a) operate seven days a week, and
(b) serve specified locations.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authorities for the areas to which the duty applies,
(b) the integrated care boards for the areas to which the duty applies, and
(c) residents, or organisations representing residents, of the areas to which the duty applies for the purposes of determining the specified locations which must be served.”
New clause 39—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Wales)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Wales.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Wales to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Welsh Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 40—Use of bus passes on cross-border journeys (Scotland)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for—
(a) bus service operators, and
(b) bus passengers,
on the functioning of bus tickets and passes for passengers travelling between destinations in England via Scotland.
(2) Guidance published under this section must allow for passengers who wish to travel between two destinations in England on journeys which require a change of service in Scotland to use tickets or passes purchased in England which cover the journey between the two destinations in England.
(3) Before publishing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Government and any other parties whom the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”
New clause 41—Driver access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS)—
In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System for drivers of PSVs
(1) Local transport authorities must ensure that service operators provide drivers of a PSV being used under a licence to provide a local bus service with access to the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System (CIRAS).
(2) If service operators do not fulfil the requirement under subsection (1) to provide access to CIRAS for drivers, the local authority may revoke the service permit.’”
This new clause would ensure that service operators provide drivers with access to CIRAS (the Confidential Incident Reporting and Analysis System).
New clause 42—Bus safety performance data—
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 144E (inserted by section 28 of this Act) insert—
‘144F Bus safety performance data
(1) Local transport authorities must—
(a) publish bus safety performance data online at minimum intervals of every quarter, and
(b) annually submit bus safety performance data to an independent auditor for the purposes of the independent auditor assessing the data’s accuracy.
(2) The independent auditor carrying out an assessment under subsection (1)(b) must publish a report on the data which must be made available on the local authority’s website.’”
This new clause would require local transport authorities to regularly publish data on bus safety performance, and for that data to be assessed for accuracy annually by an independent auditor.
New clause 43—Permitted driving time for drivers of PSVs being used under the licence to provide a local service—
“In section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time and periods of duty), at the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, subject to subsection (1A).
(1A) Drivers of public service vehicles (PSV) being used under a licence to provide a local bus service must not on any working day drive a PSV for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than nine hours.’”
This new clause would change the permitted driving time for bus drivers from ten hours to nine hours (in aggregate) to align with the permitted driving time for HGV drivers.
New clause 44—Concessionary travel for people under the age of 22—
“In the Transport Act 2000, after section 150 insert—
‘150A Free bus travel for people under the age of 22
(1) All local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, establish a concessionary travel scheme to provide free bus travel for persons under the age of 22.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations set out eligibility, administration and reimbursement arrangements for this duty.’”
This new clause would require transport authorities to provide free bus travel for children and young people who are under the age of 22.
New clause 45—Minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services—
“(1) It is a requirement for local transport authorities to provide a minimum level of bus services for individuals reliant on off-peak and nighttime transport to local and regional employment centres.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, commission each local authority in England to undertake an audit of the minimum off-peak and nighttime bus services required by those working in key employment centres in their respective areas.
(3) For the purposes of the audit specified in subsection (2), local authorities must consult with bus companies, trade unions, employers and members of the public.
(4) Where more than one local authority is responsible for the delivery, or funding, of local transport services in their respective localities, the audit specified in subsection (2) must be undertaken as a partnership between the relevant local authorities.
(5) Within three months of being commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake the audit under subsection (2), each local authority, or partnership of local authorities, must publish—
(a) the findings of its audit, and
(b) proposals for delivering the off-peak and nighttime services identified by the audit as necessary to fulfil the requirements laid out by subsection (1).
(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) a key employment centre means a city, a town with either a population above 50,000 people or whose economic output represents more than 10 per cent of that local authority’s economic activity.”
This new clause establishes a legal duty for local authorities to ensure a minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services to local employment centres, require the Government to commission local authorities to undertake an audit of local service requirements and produce proposals on providing a minimum level of services.
New clause 46—Duty to consider funding for service enhancements—
“(1) A local transport authority in England must consider whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.
(2) In exercising the duty under this section, the authority must have regard to—
(a) the potential for increased ridership; and
(b) the overall sustainability of the network.
(3) Service improvements under subsection (1) may include—
(a) increasing the frequency of existing services;
(b) extending operating hours;
(c) improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; or
(d) extending the routes of local services.”
This new clause would place a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate public funds to improve existing bus services where this would grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network, and sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions.
New clause 47—English National Concessionary Travel Scheme: Companion Passes—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.
New clause 48—Free travel for uniformed police officers—
“(1) The holder of a PSV operator’s licence must permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local service which has one or more stopping places in England.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make a statement on options for compensating operators of local services for any costs that arise or revenues lost fulfilling the duty under subsection (1).
(3) In this section—
‘local service’ has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985;
‘police officer’ means a member of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales or a special constable appointed for such an area; and
‘PSV operator’s licence’ has the same meaning as in section 82 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.”
This new clause would permit a police officer in uniform to travel without charge on any local bus service in England.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).
(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit ‘and’;
(A3) In subsection (2)(b), after ‘action’ insert ‘, and
(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.
(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—
(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme, and
(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.’
(A4) After subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.’”
This amendment to the Transport Act 2000 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
“(11) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months after the day on which this section comes into force, lay before Parliament regulations specifying the qualifications and criteria required for a person to be considered an ‘approved person’ for the purposes of section 123D of the Transport Act 2000.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This is a probing amendment to inquire whether the Secretary of State intends to issue the criteria for the “approved persons” role in the near future. A report from an approved person must occur before a franchised scheme can go ahead.
Amendment 22, in clause 10, page 6, line 38, after “2010)” insert “, or with special educational needs (within the meaning given by section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014),”.
This amendment would require local transport authorities wishing to proceed with a franchising scheme to consult bus users with special educational needs, or groups that represent them.
Amendment 25, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, after “fit;” insert—
“(db) relevant train operating companies and other public transport operators, for the purposes of ensuring coordination during peak travel times and tourist seasons;”.
This amendment would add other transport operators to the list of parties who are to be consulted when making or varying a franchising scheme.
Amendment 26, in clause 11, page 7, leave out line 10.
This amendment would retain the requirement for consultation when varying a franchising scheme.
Government amendments 32 and 33.
Amendment 66, in clause 14, page 10, line 5, after “services” insert “along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.
Amendment 5, in clause 14, page 10, line 11, at end insert—
“(4B) When the list of socially necessary local services required by subsection (3)(ba) is reviewed or amended, the relevant authority or authorities must—
(a) assess the overall adequacy of the existing network of local services in their area or combined area in enabling passengers to access essential health settings, education, goods and services, economic opportunities, and social activities;
(b) identify any gaps in the provision of socially necessary local services across the network and where existing services are insufficient, absent or cause a material adverse effect on passengers' ability to access those goods, services, opportunities, or activities;
(c) describe what further action the authority or authorities intend to take to address any identified gaps including, where appropriate, proposals for new or altered services, with timelines for implementation, and consideration of funding or alternative delivery models.
(4C) The authority or authorities must publish any assessment and proposals made under subsection (4B) after consulting—
(a) persons operating local services in the area or combined area;
(b) users of local services;
(c) NHS providers;
(d) education providers;
(e) local employers and businesses;
(f) people with disabilities; and
(g) any other persons whom the authority or authorities consider it appropriate to consult.”
This amendment would insert into the Transport Act 2000 a requirement for local transport authorities to review the adequacy of local services when considering changes to the list of socially necessary local services.
Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 10, line 20, leave out “and” and insert—
“(iv) health care services, including, but not limited to, hospitals or GP surgeries, and
(v) schools and colleges.”
This amendment would ensure that primary health care services, schools and colleges are considered as “socially necessary local services”.
Amendment 60, in clause 14, page 10, line 23, after “activities.” insert—
“(16) A service which was abolished in the 15 years before the day on which the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 was passed may also be considered a socially necessary local service for the purposes of this section and section 138C.”
This amendment would mean that previous bus services could be considered as socially necessary local services.
Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a scheme that would guarantee a service for socially necessary services where—
(a) no operator has implemented the service for a period of six months, and
(b) the local transport authority is unable to run the service.
(6) The Secretary of State must, when publishing their proposals for a scheme under this section, also provide guidance on how the scheme would be funded, including the criteria which would be used for assessing qualification for the scheme.
(7) Within a month of producing the proposals, the Secretary of State must ensure that time is made available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a scheme that would guarantee services for routes identified as socially necessary where no operator has implemented the service and the local transport authority does not have the capacity to do so.
Amendment 7, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) Where a socially necessary route has been identified in accordance with section 138A(15) of the Transport Act 2000, and no alternative operator has implemented the service within a period of six months, the relevant local authority must take reasonable steps to implement a service on the socially necessary route as far as is reasonably practicable.
(6) Where a local authority has established a socially necessary service in the absence of alternative operators, the local authority must publish a report on the establishment and operability of the service within six months, which should include, but not be limited to—
(a) the scope and nature of the service;
(b) the estimated operating costs of the service and any identified funding gaps;
(c) the impact of the service on local accessibility and transport needs;
(d) a timeline for the operation of the service;
(e) where the local authority is unable to meet the financial burdens of operating the service within six months of establishing that service, a statement specifying the extent of the financial shortfall.
(7) Where a local authority makes a statement under subsection (6)(e), the new burdens doctrine applies to the provisions of this section and the Secretary of State must consider providing appropriate financial support to the local authority to ensure the service can be delivered.
(8) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Secretary of State must publish guidance on what funds will be available for the purposes of subsection (7).
(9) A service established under these provisions is a local service operated by a local government bus company as defined by section 22(5).”
This amendment would place a duty on a relevant local authority to implement a socially necessary service should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established.
Amendment 8, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must, at intervals not exceeding six months, lay before Parliament a statement setting out—
(a) the number of socially necessary local services in England;
(b) the number of socially necessary routes that have their whole service cancelled;
(c) the average frequency of buses on socially necessary local services;
(d) the average number of days a week that socially necessary local services are in operation;
(e) total ridership on socially necessary local services; and
(f) the steps the Government is taking to improve the provision and reliability of socially necessary local services, their frequency, and bus ridership.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), ‘socially necessary local service’ has the same meaning as in section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.
(7) Each statement laid under this section must include data covering the six-month period immediately preceding the date of the statement.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with bi-annual statements including information of socially necessary local bus services and steps the Government plans to take to address any identified issues.
Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 11, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 27, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, after “comfort” insert “;—
(d) identify what, if any, provision is made to facilitate access to child and adolescent mental health services and other community-based mental health services not attached to hospitals.”
This amendment would require bus network accessibility plans to consider access to CAMHS and other community-based mental health services.
Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.
(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.
(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
Amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued under subsection (6) must require local transport authorities, when making grants to operators, to take into account factors relevant to the provision of services in their area, including but not limited to—
(a) the rurality of the area or areas to be served;
(b) the age profile of persons in the area or areas to be served;
(c) measures of deprivation in the area or areas to be served; and
(d) the percentage of persons with disabilities in the area or areas to be served.”
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the making of grants to bus operators to require authorities to consider factors relating to the demographics of the area or areas to be served when making grants.
Amendment 29, in clause 23, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(6A) The guidance must include information on when and how local transport authorities and mayors may give grants for the purposes of replacing or otherwise providing for bus services in rural or isolated areas when a socially necessary local bus service has been withdrawn, including details of what Government support or funding will be available for such purposes.”
Amendment 61, in clause 23, page 19, line 3, after “environment,” insert—
“(ba) about the operation of concessionary fare schemes by the local transport authority,”.
This amendment would include information about concessionary fare schemes in the guidance about the making of grants by local transport authorities issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 9, in clause 23, page 19, line 13, at end insert—
“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation
(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.
(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—
(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,
(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and
(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.
(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—
(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,
(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and
(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”
This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.
Government amendments 35 to 38.
Amendment 10, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, after “nuisance” insert “, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance”.
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Amendment 59, in clause 28, page 25, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) A local transport authority whose area is in England, or two or more authorities acting jointly, shall have the power to make byelaws prohibiting any person on the bus network from, to the annoyance of any person—
(a) singing; or
(b) using any instrument, article or equipment for the production or reproduction of sound.
(2B) Local transport authorities in England must, within twelve months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, make byelaws in accordance with the powers provided in subsection (2A).
(2C) Bus service operators, including those delivering services as part of a franchising, concessionary, or other scheme, must work with local police forces to ensure the effective enforcement of byelaws made under subsections (2A) and (2B).”
Government amendments 39 to 42.
Amendment 18, in clause 30, page 32, line 19, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.
Amendment 64, in clause 30, page 32, line 22, at end insert—
“(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,”.
This amendment would require guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section to cover the provision of toilet facilities.
Amendment 11, in clause 30, page 32, line 29, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 12, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take reasonable steps to implement”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 13, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 19, in clause 30, page 33, line 16, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in subsection (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in subsection (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 20, in clause 31, page 34, line 32, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, ‘floating bus stop’ is also to be understood as including ‘shared bus-stop boarders’.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Amendment 14, in clause 34, page 37, line 18, after “2003” insert—
“(c) any form of domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, beyond offences or behaviour covered by (a) or (b).”
This amendment would ensure that training for bus drivers on identifying crime includes all forms of domestic abuse.
Government amendment 43.
Amendment 15, in clause 34, page 38, line 16, at end insert—
“144H Training for senior management on disability awareness and accessibility
(1) Relevant parties must ensure that relevant persons in senior management roles undertake training concerning disability awareness and accessibility.
(2) The relevant parties are—
(a) holders of a PSV operator’s licence;
(b) local transport authorities whose areas are in England
where those parties are involved in the organisation or provision of local or school bus services.
(3) The training required under subsection (1) must be designed to enhance the understanding of senior management regarding—
(a) the needs and experiences of persons with disabilities when using local bus services;
(b) legal obligations relating to accessibility and equality in relation to bus services; and
(c) strategies for promoting independent travel, safety, and reasonable comfort for persons with disabilities on local services and at bus facilities.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is in a ‘senior management’ role if they hold a director-level position or have another senior executive or managerial role in an organisation which provides local or school bus services and has significant responsibility for strategic decision-making, policy development, or operational oversight concerning bus services within the organisation.
(5) The training required under subsection (1) must be completed—
(a) within six months of appointment to a senior management role and at least once in every five-year period thereafter;
(b) in the case of persons who were in relevant senior management roles at the time of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, at least once in every five-year period.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations require holders of PSV operators’ licences and local transport authorities to keep such records relating to their compliance with the requirements of this section as are specified or described in the regulations.
(7) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about compliance with the requirements of this section and of any regulations made under it, and the holders of PSV operator’s licences and local transport authorities must have regard to any such guidance.”
This amendment would require relevant senior managers to regularly undertake training on disability awareness and accessibility.
Government amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 62, in clause 37, page 41, line 26, leave out from “after” to “and” in line 27 and insert “1 January 2027,”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 63, would mean that operators of local bus services may not use vehicles registered after 1 January 2027 which produce the emissions specified in subsection (3)(c).
Amendment 1, in clause 37, page 41, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) A vehicle does not fall within subsection (3) if it previously had the tailpipe emissions listed in subsection (3)(c) but has since been converted to a zero-emission drive train.”
This amendment would qualify buses that have repowered from running on fossil fuels to zero emission technologies to be considered as zero emission vehicles for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment 63, in clause 37, page 42, leave out lines 1 and 2.
Amendment 30, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, leave out “2030” and insert—
“2028 in relation to vehicles to be used in areas containing all or part of a National Landscape, or 1 January 2030 in relation to all other vehicles, and the Secretary of State may by regulations provide any—
(a) financial remuneration, or
(b) specific guidance (or both)
that they deem necessary to assist local authorities in meeting the deadlines specified in this section.”
Amendment 16, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) The provisions of this section apply to any mayoral combined authority in England, where “mayoral combined authority” means an authority established under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.”
This amendment would clarify that the provisions of section 151A on zero-emissions vehicles apply to mayoral combined authorities.
Amendment 17, in clause 37, page 42, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) Within six months of the passing of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing how adequately and easily local transport authorities have been, or will be able to, access funding to replace polluting buses with zero-emission buses for the purposes of meeting the requirements of this section.
(7) A report under subsection (6) must include, but may not be limited to—
(a) an assessment of current funding mechanisms available for the transition to zero-emission buses, including grants, loans, and other financial incentives;
(b) an evaluation of the sufficiency of available funding to meet the projected costs and timelines for local transport authorities to achieve a zero-emission fleet by 2035;
(c) a review of the barriers and challenges faced by local transport authorities in accessing existing funding, including administrative burdens, eligibility criteria, and capacity constraints;
(d) recommendations for improving the adequacy and accessibility of funding to accelerate the replacement of polluting buses with zero-emission buses.
(8) In conducting the review under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including local transport authorities, bus operators and manufacturers of zero-emission vehicles.
(9) Any report under this section must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed, including any further steps to ensure sufficient and accessible funding for the transition to zero-emission buses.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report which assesses the adequacy and accessibility of funding available to local transport authorities to transition their bus fleets to zero-emission vehicles. The report must include an evaluation of current funding mechanisms, barriers to access, and recommendations for improvements.
Government amendments 46 to 50, 34 and 51 to 57.
Simon Lightwood
I have the pleasure of opening today’s debate on Report. I look forward to a lively discussion on the Bill and thank Members of the House who are here to offer their views and speak to amendments that have been tabled. Before I move to the Government’s amendments, I will briefly recap why the Bill is before the House, speak to the Government’s wider reform of buses and provide an update on progress since Committee.
The Government are seeking to deliver better bus services. That means growing patronage and ensuring that more people can use the bus. It also means leaders having powers to shape the services in their communities and bus services that help to drive opportunities across the country; and safer, reliable, affordable, inclusive and integrated bus services. The measures in the Bill work towards this vision, as do the wider reforms announced by the Government to bus funding, the recent spending review commitments and the extension of the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027. Together, these form an ambitious set of interventions designed to reverse long-term trends and improve bus services.
Consistent with this objective, and following engagement with my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the forthcoming update to the statutory franchising guidance will confirm expectations that franchising authorities consult representatives of prospective users and that the statutory guidance on stopping places will set out the Department’s expectations for how safer and more accessible stopping places can encourage an increase in bus ridership by providing facilities that people can and want to use.
In Committee, there was a wide-ranging and detailed debate across the Bill’s measures and bus policy more generally. I committed to provide an update on Report on how my Department is working with local authorities, Active Travel England and bus operators to raise awareness of certain cyclists’ behaviours around floating bus stops. Active Travel England will share materials with councils to promote awareness of the requirement for people cycling to give way to bus passengers at crossing points. This is alongside existing guidance on how to engage communities and design safe and accessible walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure.
Transport for London is carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of the highway code, with a particular focus on the rules designed to protect people walking, cycling and motorcycling. The campaign highlights five key rules that protect at-risk road users and apply where there is poor compliance and understanding of the rules, including some of the rules that were updated in 2022. This includes materials designed to remind road users, particularly cyclists, to give way at crossings at bus stops. Active Travel England and the Department have been involved in this work with the intention of sharing materials with local authorities outside London in due course.
Furthermore, in Committee, I set out that my Department will ask local authorities to undertake an audit of existing sites, alongside setting out to them our expectation on a pause. Active Travel England’s additional research includes a national audit of floating bus stops. I advise authorities to work collaboratively with ATE, so we can gain an accurate picture of where and what type of floating bus stops are in use, and therefore ensure that future guidance is comprehensive.
The Department will publish statutory guidance on the design of floating bus stops within three months of Royal Assent. That will be supported by additional research into the design of existing floating bus stops and how they can be improved to ensure they are accessible. Active Travel England has provided funding to councils and encouraged them to review existing designs against the upcoming guidance and, where required, implement remediation works. Both audits of bus stop bypasses and remediation works can be funded using the active travel funding as an essential maintenance activity.
I now move to the Government amendments. New clause 38 has been brought forward at the request of the Scottish Government. It reflects close collaboration between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will help provide greater certainty of the future demand in Scotland. I am committed to ensuring that the Governments continue to work together as they move towards the full transition to zero emission buses. The measure effectively replicates the provision in clause 37. It will have the effect of restricting the use of new non-zero emission buses on relevant services in Scotland. Powers provided to Scottish Ministers under clause 38 are analogous to those given to the Secretary of State under clause 37. Amendments 45 to 50 are consequential amendments that are minor and technical in nature or related to making transitional or saving provisions. The measure requires legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and, if necessary, the Government will return with an update during ping-pong.
Amendment 53 is a technical amendment that provides a clarification on the franchising variation procedure in the Bill’s schedule. Specifically, it clarifies the variation procedure that applies when a franchising authority wishes to vary two minor aspects of a franchising scheme—namely the additional facilities, such as depots and ticketing facilities, to be provided in the franchising area, and the description of the authority’s plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness. That will help give franchising authorities clarity on the process and ensure that relevant parties are consulted on such changes.
Amendment 57 provides further detail on who should be consulted when a franchising authority varies plans for consultation on scheme effectiveness included in its scheme, including Welsh Ministers, other affected local authorities, relevant organisations and the Passengers’ Council. Amendments 31 to 34, 51, 52 and 54 to 56 are minor and technical amendments to remove unnecessary wording.
The final set of Government amendments are numbered 35 to 45. These are minor and technical amendments that remove data protection overrides previously inserted into the Bill. The overrides are no longer necessary as the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, and these matters are now covered automatically by virtue of that legislation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. My question is on his comments on profitability. Part of the challenge we have found in Essex is that routes that were considered not profitable were being cut, which meant that rural communities were feeling isolated. Does he recognise that if bus services are based purely on profitability, they could be lost, and that that is an issue?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate.
The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should
“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.”
That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first.
This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point.
The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the need to provide for disabled bus users. My amendment would require local authorities seeking a franchise to take people with special educational needs into account, and to consult them and the groups that represent them. Does he agree with that proposal?
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims.
I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Please be seated. I should have to say “Order” only once. You just said the word “you”, so let’s restart that intervention, which should be short.
Dr Tidball
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut.
Jerome Mayhew
That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme.
We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The shadow Minister talks a lot about price, but he is defending a system in which my constituents must get three buses or more to get to their destination, and pay individual fares on those buses. Under the integrated system proposed in the Bill, we could have a price cap, like the one here in London. Why does he not support that principle?
Jerome Mayhew
I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham.
I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it.
Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is quite right.
There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it.
There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative position is to support combined authorities being able to take on franchising, yet the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor has flat out rejected franchising powers. I am proud that this Government are bringing forward this Bill to make it easier for combined authorities and other authorities to bring in franchising. In Committee, I raised the example of my constituent Norma Templeman, who has had to fight tooth and nail against the mayor and the bus companies to get buses into her village of North Skelton. How can that be right?
Jerome Mayhew
I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision.
Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been
“a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.”
It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either.
All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Will Members please be seated? Before I go to speeches from Back Benchers, I want to be clear about where we are and what we are debating, because there seems to be some confusion among colleagues. We are debating the remaining stages of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, and we are on Report. Speeches should relate to the amendments listed on the amendment paper, not the Bill as a whole, so please check the amendment paper; I say that for Back Benchers who hope to contribute.
I know that the next Member knows exactly what they are doing. I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading, except to say it is no surprise that our first stand-alone inquiry in the Transport Committee was on buses in England outside of London. That issue affects Members in England from across the House and from all sorts of constituencies.
I speak in support of two amendments that stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), myself and others: amendment 66 and new clause 46. Since Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the Transport Committee has published its “Buses connecting communities” report, which focuses on potential solutions to the long-term decline in bus ridership in England outside London. If the Government seek the reversal of bus decline in England, I hope the Minister will support our two amendments. They add to the Bill, because they specifically seek to improve bus services in a way that relying on future guidance may not. They provide the context in which local transport authorities can determine their specific bus provision. Merely devolving greater control to local authorities without any kind of overarching values-based vision will not help in areas that have no interest whatsoever in enhancing and extending their services, and could risk simply entrenching inequality and decline.
New clause 46 seeks to ensure that local transport authorities have a duty to consider funding for service enhancements. It is about
“whether, when and how to use appropriate public funding to improve existing local bus services.”
The local transport authority must have regard to six principles. These are the potential for increased ridership; the overall sustainability of the network; the service improvements, particularly the frequency of existing services; extending operating hours; improving the reliability of services or their integration with other modes of transport; and extending the routes of local services.
We know that progressive local authorities are committed to enhancing and expanding the public transport in their areas, and they do that; we have great examples under Labour mayors in Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. Having more people on more buses addresses the policy objectives that they and we in Labour seek to achieve, such as addressing congestion, air pollution, carbon emissions, social and economic isolation, and growth. However, I fear that there are—and that there could be more—local authorities that care little for those important objectives, which are central to this Government’s values.
New clause 46 would therefore bake in a duty on local transport authorities to consider using appropriate funds to improve bus services where it would
“grow ridership or improve the sustainability of the overall network”.
It sets out specific factors to be taken into account when making such decisions. It would also enable bus user groups and others to measure the intentions of their local transport authorities against those basic objectives.
New clause 46 comes from the Transport Committee’s recommendation 117, which says that the Department should
“require local transport authorities to consider using grant or fare box funding to enhance existing local bus services.”
The need to improve local bus services while growing ridership was a focal point of the evidence received by our Committee.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
On that point, does the hon. Lady accept that increasing the fare cap from £2 to £3 is likely to reduce ridership, whatever is contained in the new clause?
Ruth Cadbury
I speak in the context of devolution within an overarching set of values. I will not go into the specifics of what level a bus fare should be, but the overall ridership and the sustainability of the bus system are a key objective. I know the Minister will say that with devolution, how that happens is up to the local transport authorities.
Returning to the evidence we heard in Committee, as everybody here knows, buses remain the most used form of public transport, yet the number of bus journeys in England outside London has dropped from 4.6 billion in 2009 to 3.6 billion in 2024. Alongside the declining number of journeys, the need to improve services and increase ridership speaks to the evidence received by the Committee about the impact on social isolation of a lack of access to buses. Transport for the North told the Committee that in 2024 some 11.4 million people across England faced transport-related social exclusion, and there was evidence that the problem was worse in towns than in cities.
The Minister told us that the Government intended the Bill to deliver services that were more affordable and reliable, faster and better integrated. However, when pressed on whether people in England would see more buses to more places by the end of this Parliament, he said that that is certainly their intention and they are doing everything possible to make it happen. My contention is that without that being baked into the body of the Bill, there is a risk that in many places there could be a continued decline in bus services over time.
Amendment 66 to clause 14 relates to socially necessary services. It seeks to insert in line 5 of page 10 after the word “services”:
“along with a description of the criteria or methodology used to determine which services are considered socially necessary”.
It would be for the local transport authority to define that, but in a publicly visible way. The amendment asks that local authorities be required to produce a transparent methodology for how they determine these socially necessary services.
The North West Surrey Bus Users Group made the argument to the Committee that a clear and consistently applied definition was essential for holding local authorities accountable for maintaining basic service levels on loss-making routes. It warned that in the absence of sufficient guidance to date, some authorities had, to a greater or lesser extent, abdicated their responsibilities. As a result of such evidence, the Committee’s report recommended that the Department should mandate local transport authorities to publish their own transparent methodology for how they determine which bus services qualify as socially necessary to ensure public accountability—hence the reason for this amendment.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
North East Surrey College of Technology in my constituency is not accessible by bus, leaving students having to travel even further for their education because local bus services are simply not serving young people. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill must expand the definition of socially necessary local services to explicitly include schools and colleges?
Ruth Cadbury
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which goes to the heart of what I am saying: it is not for this Bill and this Government to define whether or not colleges, schools and so forth should be included—one would hope they would be—but it is for the local authority to define their socially necessary services according to the needs in their area. They should publish it, and a requirement to do so should be in the Bill.
I am pretty sure that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, Chair of the Select Committee, it’ll be in the guidance.” My concern is that guidance is to some extent discretionary and can be changed over time. I, Alex Mayer and others would like to see the need to have a definition and methodology for socially necessary services stated in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I talked so highly of the Select Committee Chair and said that she does everything right, but I think she mentioned a colleague by their name, not by their constituency. Can we try and stick to the etiquette?
Ruth Cadbury
I have only been here 10 and a bit years; I will get used to it. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill as currently drafted suggests that local transport authorities merely define their socially necessary services. That could mean services as they are now; it does not take into account changes in need. New housing developments might mean that a loss-making route becomes commercially viable. The closure of a major employer might mean that nearby housing loses a viable bus service. The Bill allows for change, but it should require local authorities to have a publicly available methodology, on which user groups, communities and residents can hold their local transport authority to account.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In addition to the point about socially necessary routes, companies such as Stagecoach cut the frequency of essential buses—such as the No. 2 from Exeter through to Dawlish in my constituency and on down towards Paignton. That drives people away from the buses; when the frequency goes down from every 20 minutes to every 30 minutes, it makes the service unusable and takes away the social value of the route.
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member is entirely correct.
Our amendments would support local transport authorities to grow their local bus networks actively in response to demographic and economic changes, not just to manage the decline. Without the amendments, particularly amendment 66, the only requirement is for authorities to list their current services. While acknowledging the Government’s rightful drive on devolution, our Committee would not want any local transport authority to walk away from the Bill’s important objectives to promote growth, particularly in towns across England; to promote reliability and integration; and to address social isolation, inequality, traffic congestion and pollution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Minister and commend him for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of this Bill on the Floor of the House, in Committee and via the usual channels.
Let me make it clear from the outset that my party supports the basic tenets of this Bill. The Tories’ ideologically driven decision to deregulate the bus network in the ’80s and allow private operators to cream off the profitable routes paid scant regard for many unprofitable, mainly rural, routes serving small communities, which unless subsidised by an increasingly hard-pressed local government were simply abandoned. Since 1985, as a direct consequence of their meddling, the number of bus journeys taken in this country has fallen by over 2 billion—a decline of almost 40%—and more than 8,000 services have been cut or withdrawn entirely. In counties such as Shropshire and Devon, and across the country from Cornwall to Caithness, entire villages lost daily services, and some areas were reduced to one bus per week or none.
The Bill represents a bold attempt to reverse that decline. If implemented properly, which will require more funding than currently on offer, it could be transformational, returning control over local bus networks to local communities. It would remove bureaucratic barriers to franchising, enabling local authorities to design routes, timetables, fares and branding that meet the needs of communities, while allowing profitable routes to cross-subsidise the unprofitable ones, rather than lining the pockets of big business, opening up the possibility of a more reliable, integrated and affordable network, which is so crucial for rural and deprived areas that are currently facing steep service declines.
Liberal Democrats want to ensure that this legislation fulfils its potential by empowering local communities, protecting vital routes and driving the shift to greener, fairer transport. We know how important buses are to people’s daily lives. If this Bill is to succeed, it must put passengers first. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled so many amendments. I acknowledge that many of them will not be selected for a vote, but even at this late hour, I ask the Minister, please, to cast his eye over them to see which ones he might still accept.
It is worth highlighting that no fewer than 42 amendments were accepted on Report in the Lords, 30 of them from the Government and a further six from Lord Blunkett which the Government chose to support, after some intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying by my Lib-Dem colleagues. I thank them for amendments that we re-tabled in this place to address bus fare affordability, disabled passenger access, decarbonisation of the bus fleet and the protection of socially necessary routes.
Helen Maguire
The E5 bus service for Langley Vale in my constituency has a woefully inadequate timetable and a route that does not stop at the local hospital. Local bus routes are simply not servicing my residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill must tackle poor services and restore the £2 fare cap, reversing the devastating effect of route cuts administered under the Conservatives?
Mr Kohler
Those are exactly the issues that the Bill should and could address if the Minister took the bold steps we are asking of him today. In its passage through the other place, the Bill was clearly strengthened through constructive engagement across the political divide. The Government have been willing to accept sensible proposals from their lordships, so surely there can be no good reason why equally sensible amendments tabled here in the Commons could not be adopted.
One such sensible proposal concerns floating bus stops. Badly designed floating bus stops are a menace to the disabled, old and infirm, and in particular to the visually impaired, which is why my party tabled new clause 17, requiring the Secretary of State not only to conduct a review, but to retrofit all existing floating bus stops where necessary. We support amendments 18 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and welcome the Minister’s concessions on the issue.
I will address the three amendments that we continue to press with most conviction before turning to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Our amendment 10 addresses the scourge of headphone dodgers, which is not a trivial matter. Many passengers feel unsafe or uncomfortable when others play loud content on their devices without headphones, oblivious of those around them. That is not simply an irritation; it causes genuine distress to many trying to travel in relative peace and quiet. More than 75% of those who use public transport stated that it disturbs them, according to a recent Savanta poll. More than 80% of people in a separate YouGov poll agreed that it is unacceptable.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the provisions apply to people who travel on trains but not on buses? Does he understand why the Government made that distinction?
Mr Kohler
I agree entirely. We need a simple rule across all public transport. I also think it is odd that the hon. Gentleman makes that point after his colleagues jeered me when I first raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions a few months ago—but I thank him for his support now. Our amendment 10 would allow local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to prohibit such disruptive antisocial noise. It would be a simple, practical measure that would make bus travel better for everyone. Some have argued that such measures are illiberal, but liberalism—unlike libertarianism—is as concerned with responsibilities as with rights. My right to play loud content on my phone does not preclude my responsibility not to cause someone else unnecessary disturbance by failing to plug in my headphones—after all, that is why they were invented.
When I first raised this issue at PMQs, as I mentioned, the Conservatives and Reform—who are not here, of course—jeered at the suggestion. I cannot say whether the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) or other members of the shadow Transport Front-Bench team joined in that chorus. Although the Prime Minister, in his extremely constructive answer, agreed that it was a serious issue, his Labour colleagues in Committee voted down the amendment, which the Tories also refused to support, consistent with their previous hostility.
In a bizarre volte face, the Conservatives have now tabled an amendment that mirrors our own, and the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, has taken to the airwaves in recent weeks to demand action on headphone dodgers, having miraculously seen the light—or at least heard the noise. Whether that was because of headphone dodgers or Conservative headquarters focus groups, I will leave others to judge. People say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and, despite the Conservatives’ previous mocking and blocking, I am delighted to welcome our Conservative friends to the cause. I ask the Minister to listen again—which would be a damned sight easier to do were amendment 10 accepted and the headphone dodgers were consigned to history.
Without doubt, the Minister will say as he did in Committee, that the Bill already gives local transport authorities the ability to address antisocial behaviour. However, it does not explicitly reference the scourge of auditory disturbance, which is so serious a problem as surely to merit the individual attention that our amendment 10 would provide, empowering local transport authorities to create a bus environment that is safe, civil and comfortable for everyone. If the Government are serious about improving the passenger experience, they, like the late-arriving Conservatives, must surely come around to supporting this sensible Liberal Democratic policy, which according to Savanta is supported by a vast majority of the public; only 13% are opposed.
New clause 1 would reinstate the £2 bus cap. The Government’s recent decision to hike the cap to £3 represents a 50% increase that will drive people off buses and hit the most vulnerable in our society.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I absolutely support the reduction of the price cap to £2. However, in my constituency, where the Conservatives cut bus routes by more than 50% over the past decade, people often have to get several buses, so for a couple of constituents I have, going to the Jobcentre costs them £12, even though a price cap is in place. Do we not need a simpler structure and proper investment so that buses do not cost so much?
Mr Kohler
Those are indeed the issues that we need to address and that are not addressed at the moment—my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The poorest, who use buses the most, are already struggling with the cost of living crisis. No amount of spin can hide the fact that the Government’s decisions represents a huge fare increase, despite the Prime Minister taking to social media last month to proclaim that he was putting working people first, and that this fare rise would “cut costs” for working families. No, it will not.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In Torbay, which is sadly one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England, bus travel is the primary form of public transport. The £2 price cap was valued by young people and by those of working age in navigating Torbay. Does my hon. Friend agree that its reinstatement would help oil the wheels of our communities, such as Torbay?
Mr Kohler
That is hugely important. If we want to get people back on the buses and help the most deprived in our society, we need to reinstate the £2 bus cap.
Fares have risen to the point where many households simply cannot afford to use the bus regularly. A £2 fare cap would make a tangible difference to low-income families, students and modest earners, while also helping to reduce congestion and cut emissions by getting more people out of their cars. Sadly, new clause 1 has not been scheduled for a vote, so we will support the Conservatives’ more modest proposal, amendment 23, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an impact assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap.
Another clause that will not be pressed to a vote is our new clause 48, which would have provided free travel for uniformed police officers in order to provide greater reassurance to the travelling public. Antisocial behaviour—and not just headphone dodging—is on the increase across the bus network, and the sight of more police officers on buses would only help to reduce that menace. Currently, there is a patchwork of different schemes covering some, but not all, bus operators, and requiring officers to produce a variety documentation to access free travel, which is not infrequently denied. Our new clause would have provided a simple baseline requiring no bureaucracy, allowing every officer in uniform to travel freely on any bus. I again ask the Minister to consider accepting that costless improvement to the safety of the bus network.
I now turn to a hugely consequential cross-party amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), whose work on the Bill has been thoughtful and persistent. His new clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes. It is supported not just by Liberal Democrats but by Members across the House, including on the Government Benches. Disabled passengers, forced to travel at restricted times under current rules, face unnecessary barriers to jobs, appointments and social inclusion. Removing time restrictions would allow them to use the bus network when they need it. It is right that the House should support this new clause, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward.
Rigid time slots reflect outdated thinking. Disabled people deserve travel choices that reflect real-life needs. If, as they claimed during their ill-fated attempt to reduce personal independence payments before the recess, the Government really want to help more disabled people back into work, removing such restrictions would be a wonderful place to start. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has selected new clause 2 for a vote, and I ask Members across the House to bear witness to the cross-party support that it has already received by voting together in support of it.
In conclusion, my party welcomes the Bill, which will make a real difference to our bus network, but I call on the Government and the Minister to not allow petty party rivalry and tribalism to stand in the way of making this legislation even more effective by voting against the sensible amendments and new clauses that we have proposed.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the RMT and Unite parliamentary groups, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the RMT for its support in scrutinising the Bill. With thousands of members working in the bus sector across England, it is uniquely placed to contribute its expertise.
The context is stark. In 2024 there were 76 million fewer bus journeys in the north-east compared with 2010—a fall of more than a third. That decline is not just a statistic; it represents missed shifts, social isolation and communities cut off from opportunity. I place on record that I support the Bill, but I will speak to the four amendments that stand in my name—new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 35—and voice my support for new clause 45.
New clause 27 would create a national bus forum with representatives from the Government, local transport authorities, operators and trade unions. Deregulation has left the sector fragmented, making it hard to tackle challenges, such as recruitment, retention, skills and safety, in a coherent way. The Transport Committee’s 2018 inquiry into the health of the bus market, undertaken when I was a member of the Committee, recommended that the Government’s strategy be
“underpinned by a national forum”
to share information on service improvement, workforce issues and safety. The National Audit Office echoed that, urging the Department for Transport to use the bus centre of excellence to collate and share best practice. A national forum would provide that structure and oversight.
However, national oversight alone is not enough. New clause 25 would require all local transport authorities introducing franchising to establish a joint forum with unions and operators. The Government said that they expect LTAs to engage with unions, although expectation is not a guarantee. However, leaving this as an “expectation” will not guarantee meaningful engagement everywhere. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), there are inconsistencies, including in the Tees Valley. Some LTAs are experienced in working constructively with unions, but others are not. A statutory requirement would ensure consistent and meaningful engagement everywhere.
New clauses 26 and 35 address enhanced partnerships. Many local transport authorities will opt for enhanced partnerships instead of franchising, and that is a matter for them. At present, stakeholder forums must include passengers, businesses and neighbouring authorities, but unions are not listed. I respectfully say to the Minister that if the aim of stakeholder forums is to involve those most directly affected, then surely the workforce cannot be excluded. New clauses 26 and 35 would remedy that by requiring trade union participation in every enhanced partnership forum.
I support new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), which would establish a legal duty on councils to provide a minimum level of night-time bus services to local employment centres, ensuring that workers such as nurses, hospitality staff and factory employees can get home safely. This is particularly important for women, given that more than one in four will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetime. Night-time buses are a matter not just of convenience, but of safety.
Taken together, new clauses 25, 27, 26 and 35 form a coherent package—national oversight and best practice matched by consistent workforce engagement at local level. Alongside new clause 45, these new clauses demonstrate what this Bill should achieve: a bus system that is accountable, safe and responsive to the needs of both passengers and staff. If the Government cannot accept them, I urge the Minister to commit instead to addressing these matters through guidance or a code of practice, and to meet the trade unions and stakeholders to decide how that might be achieved. The Bill represents an opportunity to reshape bus services for the better, but that opportunity will be wasted if we repeat the mistakes of deregulation, fragmentation, inconsistency and sidelining the workforce. These new clauses are about making sure that this time we get it right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 47, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will also make a passing reference to his excellent new clause 2, which I wholeheartedly support and which—as we have heard—is designed to remove the time restrictions on when disabled persons’ concessionary bus passes can be used.
New clause 47 is very simple and, I would like to think, very logical. It simply requires that the Secretary of State should,
“within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, bring forward proposals to extend the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme to include Companion Passes for disabled persons who require the assistance of a designated companion in order to use the bus network”.
I was first alerted to this problem by some very effective lobbying done in Parliament a few months ago, which other right hon. and hon. Members may well remember. I was lobbied by a number of my constituents, who said to me that there was not much point in having a concessionary pass to use buses free of charge if they were unable to do so except when helped by a companion. It rather made a mockery of the concession.
I followed this up with a visit to the New Forest branch of Mencap, and the implications of the scheme were impressed on me as being so obvious as to require little supporting argument. What is the point of giving somebody something for free if they cannot use it without the assistance of someone else, unless a designated companion is able to travel with them for free on the same bus pass? A number of county councils, for example, allow this, but it is a discretionary power. That seems rather strange, because a number of aspects of the scheme are statutory requirements. I believe this should be one of them, if it is not to make a nonsense—as I have already explained—of the statutory requirement that disabled persons should have a free bus pass.
I have tabled a couple of written questions on this topic. One in particular—number 48343, tabled on 27 April—asked the Government whether their review of the English national concessionary travel scheme had made a recommendation on the question of companion passes for the disabled. The answer read, in part:
“The Department for Transport conducted a review of the ENCTS and is currently considering next steps. The review did not consider adding companion passes to the statutory criteria for the scheme.”
The answer then added a standard formulation that I have received in response to other questions on this topic:
“Currently, local authorities in England have the power to go beyond their statutory obligations under the ENCTS and offer additional discretionary concessions, such as extending the travel time criteria for the ENCTS.”
I simply put it to the House that if a pass-issuing authority has a statutory duty to provide disabled people with a free bus pass, there ought to be a statutory duty to require a designated companion to be included on that same pass for those who cannot use it without a companion. That is probably not something that will be decided today, but I hope the impeccable logic of my argument will appeal to the Minister and that within 12 months he will take the action requested.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to new clauses 23 and 24. I begin by commending the Minister for his engagement with me on this Bill. We have had some robust and good dialogue and conversation on floating bus stops, and I am sure he would agree with me on that.
Nobody in this place should be surprised to hear me speaking about floating bus stops. As we know, for more than a decade, floating bus stops have created a huge challenge for pedestrians. Active Travel England has rightly said:
“Bus stops should be easily accessible… The routes to the bus stops should be safe, direct, convenient and accessible for people of all abilities.”
Is there anybody in this House who does not agree with that?
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend knows that one of the busy floating bus stops in my constituency is right outside St Thomas’ hospital, which I will confess I have had a few bumps on. She and I did oppose its introduction. Does she agree that all floating bus stops should be reviewed, so that when patients are going to important sites such as hospital, they are not being knocked from their bikes or buggies?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree 100% with her assessment. She is right; all those years ago—I do not want to say how long, because we will be showing our age—we opposed that floating bus stop outside St Thomas’ hospital, because we knew the challenges it would present for pedestrians.
Pedestrians continue to be injured at floating bus stops, with cyclists too often failing to give way. Even though some floating bus stops have small zebra crossings, it is rare to see cyclists stop. We know that blind and partially sighted people are having to walk into cycle lanes and into the way of cyclists, and they cannot see. That will be terrifying and a dangerous experience for them. The risk of injury can undermine their ability to travel independently and safely, and not being able to travel independently is life-limiting. It affects everything from, as my hon. Friend has just said, accessing vital health services, to holding down a job, or just being able to go out and socialise with friends.
Anecdotally, we know that people are experiencing injuries and collisions at floating bus stops. For that reason, I strongly believe that we need to have hard data if we are to address the problem properly. That is why my amendment 21 would ensure that data is gathered on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders. As we know, they vary in their design and some pose more danger than others.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. She knows that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, I share similar concerns for them. We often see that bus ramps are designed to fit in with the bus boarder, but it is then very difficult for the wheelchair user to pivot from the exit of the bus ramp back on to the pavement. Will she join me in continuing to impress upon the Government that we have got to get the design right in order to assist all disabled people, and that disabled people—whether blind or partially sighted, or wheelchair users—must continue to be engaged in this dialogue?
Marsha De Cordova
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point so well. I am fairly certain that the Minister will have heard him loud and clear and will agree. It is so important that we get the design right. If we are seeking to do what is best, we need to know what needs to be changed, and we need to collect data on the design and location of all floating bus stops so that we can compare it with the number of collisions and injuries.
I very much welcome the fact that Active Travel England will undertake further research, including a national audit and safety review of all floating bus stops, to gain an accurate picture of where such bus stops are in use, what type they are, and so on. That could really help to shape future guidance. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about when the research will commence, because I am sure that many people will welcome it.
Although I appreciate that there will be an equality impact assessment of the Bill as a whole, and that impact assessments have already been produced, it is clear to me that there needs to be a particular focus on the concerns of blind and partially sighted people when it comes to shared-use bus boarders and floating bus stops, so my new clause 23 would require an equality impact assessment on their provision. If we are to have the truly accessible transport system that we are all striving for, we need to pay attention to the impact of our transport decisions on disabled people.
Floating bus stops were introduced in London in 2013, and they have caused havoc. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) mentioned the one just over the bridge outside St Thomas’ hospital, but even in my own Battersea constituency they just appear, and they really do create a challenge for many—and not just for disabled people or blind and partially sighted people, but for the elderly and for families with young children and buggies. I would go so far as to say that in many respects the safety interests of some groups of road users have sometimes been treated more favourably, to the detriment of others.
Florence Eshalomi
Does my hon. Friend agree that by getting this right and ensuring that we have bus stops that are accessible for everybody, including partially sighted people and disabled people, we will encourage more people to use public transport, because they will feel that it is safe and accessible for them?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are encouraging people to do more active travel and to use public transport, so we need to ensure that the transport network is fully accessible and inclusive. The Minister has confirmed that an equality impact assessment will be published upon Royal Assent, and I press him again to clarify that for me.
Right now, we have a system that blind and partially sighted people say puts them at risk. It is not just me, with my own lived experience, saying that; many blind and partially sighted people say it, and the many organisations that support them have said the same. That tells me that we perhaps need to rethink floating bus stops. Indeed, if I had my way—I do not, unfortunately—I would ban them all, because they have created a challenge. None the less, we are where we are, and I am really pleased that the Government want to work to improve the situation. I welcome the fact that clause 31 seeks to address some of the challenges. My new clause 24 would place a duty on the Government to carry out an independent assessment.
I welcome the Government’s commitment on producing guidance for local services around the country in order to promote active travel, but also to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. In my view, that must be mandatory; it cannot be optional. I know the Minister has heard my concerns, and he has confirmed that that will be the case.
I also welcome the partial pause on some types of floating bus stops. As Members have said, it is so important that we address some of the safety concerns before moving to a full-scale roll-out of floating bus stops. I thank organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, the National Federation of the Blind, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Transport for All, and the many blind, partially sighted and disabled people, for campaigning on this issue relentlessly to ensure that we really have a public realm that is fully accessible and fully inclusive, so that we can all benefit.
I will not push my new clauses and amendments to a vote. I fully support the Government in their endeavour, and I support this Bill.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
North Shropshire is a very rural constituency, and it is nestled in against the Welsh border, which is wiggly—I think that is the best way to describe it. That means that my constituents’ experience of using buses can be problematic, and I have tabled some new clauses that I hope the Minister will reflect on.
Shropshire is one of the worst-served counties for buses, having lost 66% of its bus miles since 2015. It has lost more bus miles, by percentage, than any other county in England. The average loss of bus miles is about 20.9%, so it has been a severe experience for my constituents. Towns such as Market Drayton have almost become isolated, because their bus service is so poor. I am sure the House has heard me say before that there is only one bus running in Shropshire on Sundays. I am lucky enough to be able to report that it runs from a town in my constituency, but it is hardly an acceptable situation for my constituents.
New clause 37 is sponsored by 30 colleagues from across the House, revealing that my constituents’ experience is shared by people in many parts of rural Britain. It tries to address the problem of poor bus services in market towns by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that a service must be available seven days a week, and that she consults the relevant bodies to ensure that constituents using the bus service can access essential services. My Bus Services Bill, which aims to get people to hospital and other health services when they need to do so, has that requirement, but it could equally be applied to schools, colleges and other important destinations for people who find themselves isolated.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In Bournemouth East, I am campaigning to get a better bus route to Bournemouth airport, to improve the No. 33 and to reinstate a service in Throop, where the community feel very disconnected. Does the hon. Lady agree that one benefit of this Bill is that it empowers local authorities to run their own bus companies so that they can reinstate those routes?
Helen Morgan
I am broadly supportive of the Bill, because I think it will do that. My point is that the power to franchise bus services is all very well, but the funding needs to follow the power. Otherwise, constituencies such as mine will not see the improvements for which they are desperate.
Colleagues have talked about the bus fare cap. I am supportive of measures to keep it at £2, but I must point out that in constituencies such as mine, which has little in the way of bus services, a cap has not made a huge difference. Some of the operators have not opted into that cap, so it has had limited impact for my constituents, important as it is.
The £1 billion fund announced by the Department for Transport last November promised to give rural and coastal areas a real sea change in their bus services, but in Shropshire—as I mentioned, it has had the worst drop-off in its services in the whole country—only £2.5 million was allocated. That is the critical point and why I am fully supportive of the Bill’s measures that will allow local authorities to decide where bus services are essential. The funding needs to follow them, regardless of whether areas are in a combined authority or have a mayor, and it should follow need, not just structure. I urge the Minister to take that on board.
Although we are not voting on new clause 37, across the House, including on the Government Benches, 30 Members have sponsored it. Many similar amendments have been tabled that likewise seek to improve bus services for people living in rural areas, and ensure they are adequate to access essential services. I urge the Minister to consider the intentions of my new clause, and those of similar amendments tabled by colleagues, and commit to some kind of improvement for rural areas when he makes his closing remarks.
I mentioned that North Shropshire is pressed up against the border with Wales and that the border with Wales is very wiggly. That gives my constituents a specific challenge with their bus passes. If they want to catch a bus between two destinations in England but it stops in Wales or they need to change in Wales, their bus pass is not valid. I think that is a bit crazy. For example, if they want to go from Oswestry to Chester and they need to change at Wrexham, their bus pass will not be valid. That is the one service that runs on a Sunday. We need to ensure that people can use their bus passes when they are crossing the border. That is a very low-cost thing, which ought to be very easy for a Government to sort out. My new clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to liaise with the Welsh Government and come up with a workable solution for what is probably an unintended consequence of devolution between England and Wales. I hope the Minister will take that on board and consider a workable solution for people using their bus passes across the border.
I also tabled new clause 40, which replicates that requirement for Scotland. I appreciate that that does not impact my constituents in North Shropshire, but I tabled it in the name of being inclusive.
I am proud to have been one of the first signatories to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). I will not take any of the credit for the new clause because he has done all the hard work, but I will urge the Minister to consider accepting new clause 2 because it is so important. Disability does not stop at 9.30.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
I speak in support of the Bill and in favour of new clause 22 in my name.
We can now say in complete confidence that the privatisation and deregulation of our bus services has been a catastrophic failure for rural towns and villages such as those across North East Hertfordshire. Decades of dogmatic adherence to flawed ideology has created vast public transport deserts where residents have no meaningful alternative to driving a car. The consequent social costs of this failure have been profound: more and more traffic that stifles our communities and chokes our rivers and air with life-limiting pollution; young people cut off from education and employment, forced to leave their homes to get on in life; and our elderly trapped in loneliness and isolation, which should be a source of shame for our entire nation. The privatisation disaster means for those unable to drive or afford a car, a connected life in rural England is practically impossible.
I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill that together offer a chance to reverse the hollowing out of our villages which threatens to end centuries of cultural and economic vibrancy. We need a bus network that comprehensively meets the needs of every community, especially for rural areas that lost their train stations in the Beeching cuts, including Buntingford, Westmill, Braughing, and Standon in my constituency. That is why I have tabled new clause 22, which would empower Ministers to conduct a review into the delivery of guaranteed minimum bus service standards for every community with more than 300 residents across England.
During the progress of the Bill, I ran a survey on the experience of my constituents of their local bus services. Hundreds of residents responded and a massive, if unsurprising, 83% of them felt that the bus services available do not offer a viable alternative to owning and driving a car. As I am sure you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether via the survey or in community meetings, my constituents have been none too shy in sharing their thoughts about the quality, reliability and general usefulness of local bus services. Consequently, it is completely clear to me that voters in North East Hertfordshire are utterly fed up with a bus network based on profitability for shareholders rather than public need. The measures in the Bill to address that with a long-overdue strengthening of socially necessary bus services are very welcome.
However, to succeed in meeting the hopes of communities such as those that I represent, we should go further and move towards a universal basic right to public transport with enshrined service standards across the country, replacing the threadbare, patchwork and inadequate network left by deregulation. Although it may be difficult to imagine, given the current state of public transport in our nation, that is, in fact, something that other countries are quite happily doing already. In Switzerland, the region of Zurich guarantees villages of 300 people or more at least an hourly bus service running seven days a week from 6 am to midnight, linking rural residents to regional facilities for employment, education, training, shopping and leisure, while North Hesse in Germany has a target of bus services reaching every village across the region every hour.
Sir Ashley Fox
My constituents want the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services to be improved, and that is why I support new clause 34. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for re-tabling it. When the Secretary of State spoke to the Bill on Second Reading, she said that improving bus services underpins the Government’s plan for change. If that is the case, it strikes me as odd that the Government would strip out a new clause made in the other place that specifically stated that that was the purpose of the Bill.
I also support new clause 29, which calls for a review of the provision of bus services to villages in England. There are many villages in my constituency with poor or non-existent bus routes, with particular problems in Spaxton, Enmore, Combwich, Fiddington and Stockland Bristol. These villages find themselves just off the main routes, with the residents left all but stranded, unable even to get to and from Bridgwater unless they have a car.
Even in the villages that do have services, far too often the bus service stops in the early evening. For example, the last No. 16 bus to Langport, which serves Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery, leaves Bridgwater at 5.15 pm. That means not only that the services fail to cater for those who want to travel for leisure, but that many constituents are unable to use buses for commuting because they cannot get home after work.
The review should also consider integration between different modes of transport, which is an important issue for those living in rural areas who need to travel further afield. There has been no usable bus stop at Bridgwater railway station for several years because of road layout problems. It is a relatively small fix, but despite running Somerset council for the last three years, the Lib Dem administration seems unable to fix the problem. We must ensure that the Bill obliges local authorities to act in circumstances such as these, and I hope the review will assist in that.
Another problem my constituents would wish the review to consider is seasonal timetables. I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of Somerset that attracts large numbers of visitors to both the coast and the Quantock hills. During the summer, demand for buses is understandably higher. What the bus operators seem to forget, however, is that the local resident population relies on bus services continuing all year round. Seasonal buses help those in the north of my constituency commuting to work or college in Weston-super-Mare. The reduced frequency of the No. 20 bus service and the lack of a Sunday service in the winter months mean that fewer people can rely on it. I hope that the Government accept the need for this review and that its results better inform policy when the new franchising is rolled out.
I support amendment 23, which calls for an assessment of the ending of the £2 bus cap. The £2 cap was a great achievement of the last Conservative Government, and I was disappointed when the Labour Government decided to scrap it. They increased the amount that all our constituents have to pay by 50% and then proclaimed it a triumph. It sounds like something from Soviet propaganda. We are supposed to welcome this glorious new £3 bus fare as some sort of victory of the proletariat over the forces of capitalism, conveniently forgetting what preceded it. I want to see the £2 cap reinstated, and I hope that the assessment will be the first step toward that.
I want to see bus services improved for my constituents. I believe that amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34 would improve the Bill, and I urge the Minister to accept them.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.
Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.
Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.
Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.
All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.
The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.
It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.
While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.
Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.
As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.
More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.
The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.
Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
My hon. Friend may be aware that in East Sussex, where I am lucky enough to be an MP, the county council has already removed the restriction on timings. Indeed, he has met my former Liberal Democrat council colleague Sean Macleod to discuss that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that creates a postcode lottery across the country, where some people are fortunate to live in places that have removed the restriction and others are not so lucky?
Tom Gordon
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I highlight the work that Liberal Democrat councillors, including him, have done over the years to ensure that such provision is made. That postcode lottery is completely unfair.
Economically, the argument is equally strong. We know that disabled people already face higher living costs. Removing the 9.30 am restriction would open up work and training opportunities that begin before that cut-off, and crucially, the cost of doing so is modest. Research by Whizz Kidz showed that it would cost about 1% of the current annual spend on concessionary travel, and we know that for each pound spent on concessionary bus passes, it is thought that over £3 is brought back in economic benefit.
Ending the restriction would deliver more than just transport access. It would promote independence, reduce isolation, improve health outcomes and encourage greater use of sustainable public transport. Charities such as Whizz Kidz have shown that young disabled people overwhelmingly support 24/7 access, with many saying it would help them build confidence, friendship and skills.
The amendment has support from leading disability charities such as the RNIB, as well as cross-party support in this House. Now is the time for this Labour Government to show their commitment to improving access and tearing down barriers to inequality by supporting the amendment. The Minister and I have had many interactions on this subject and I am sure he is not surprised to see me pushing for it again today. I urge him to consider it, whether through the Bill or further down the line in different possible measures and arrangements.
It is high time that disabled people had the same freedom to travel, the same independence and the same opportunity as everyone else. That is what the amendment would deliver and I urge all Members across this House to support it. Disabilities do not start at 9.30 am, so disabled bus passes should not either.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses.
Today’s debate is so important to the people of Shrewsbury, as we have lost over two thirds of our bus routes in the past 10 years. We are one of the largest towns in the UK, with over 65,000 residents, yet we have not seen a Sunday bus for over a decade. We also have very few evening bus services, which is holding back our nighttime economy, despite being a glorious tourist destination.
The new bus powers for franchising will be a game changer for local councils such as ours in Shropshire. They will give us the opportunity to introduce new bus routes if they are considered to be socially necessary, such as that all-important Sunday service or some additional stops to widen access to our current hospital bus route and the new health clinic facilities coming down the track. It is our belief that these social routes could eventually build up their passenger numbers and ultimately become economically viable in their own right.
To that end, I wish to speak in support of the Bill and new clause 45, which seeks to bring forward requirements on transport authorities to deliver the minimum level of off-peak and nighttime bus services. That could transform access to employment for many of the residents in my constituency. We have only a handful of bus services after 6 o’clock and only one single bus at 8 o’clock, yet we are the county town and host to the county’s health, governance, economic and education services, as well as being a major employer for a county of 350,000 residents. Shift workers, NHS staff and those working in hospitality—as well as those of us who enjoy hospitality—need those buses to run beyond 8 o’clock.
The Shropshire bus services users group has consistently campaigned on the need for evening and the all-important Sunday bus services. Until now, no commercial company would take the risk, but within the last year, bus routes added by my local authority using Government bus service improvement plan money have led to increased passenger numbers and become embedded in our network. To overcome the reticence of private companies to widen their routes at economic risk, the local authority is ready to do that, where legislation allows and where passenger data indicates that all-important demand and socially necessary routes. The new clause would support Shropshire council by underpinning the need to re-establish evening and Sunday bus services, giving the impetus to widen those routes.
To conclude, I wish to remind the Minister, as I do in every speech, that my beautiful town of Shrewsbury lost its Sunday service a decade ago under the last Government, and that it is in both our hands to ensure that we reinstate it under this Labour Government.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and has cross-party support. I really hope that that cross-party support holds up in the vote.
As we have heard, disability does not stop at peak times. I represent a rural constituency and our buses are very infrequent, so having a time restriction on a bus pass is even more serious. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on classics, I enjoy a good tale about mythological creatures such as centaurs and the minotaur, but unfortunately for some of my constituents, seeing a bus is almost as likely as seeing one of them.
Remarkably, there are no Sunday bus services at all in most of my constituency. We have one of the greatest cathedrals in the world, but many of my residents cannot get to it for Sunday worship. Some of my villages have no buses at all, and the likes of Coveney and Wardy Hill have one bus per week. Others have bus services every two hours—those services are probably some of the best. If we restrict disabled people to using their passes after 9.30, they cannot catch the 9.20 bus and have to wait for the 11.20, so effectively they cannot do anything anywhere else in the morning. That cannot be right. We have to remove that restriction.
The current situation is not sustainable or acceptable. For rural communities, the situation is so dire that the recent risk of the 9 bus route between Littleport and Cambridge being halted meant that communities faced being unable to get to work or college. Constituents referred to this service as a lifeline for them, and they were right. To have a situation in 2025 where the ending of a single bus route makes entire communities a transport black hole is dreadful. It is just not acceptable. Had residents been properly consulted, I am certain the proposal would have been comprehensively rejected, which is why I support new clause 32 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to require consultation before any discussions on the alteration or withdrawal of a local bus service. I know the new clause has not been selected, but I hope the Minister will consider it.
The Government’s decision to increase the bus fare cap hit my constituents hard, because many of them have to get more than one bus to complete their journey. I ask both for the cap to be brought back to £2 and for it to be a cap on the journey, not the fare for each bus someone catches. It should not be too much to ask for a basic, functional and affordable transport service for rural communities. Pensioners should not have to miss medical appointments because there is only one bus per hour, students should not have to worry about missing classes, disabled people should not have to miss anything in the morning, and people should not have to move from their home village for the sake of getting to work on time.
This Bill is positive, but the Government need to do a lot more to improve transport services in rural communities such as mine. It would be a start if we allowed the disabled members of those communities to catch buses at any time.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill and new clauses 46 and 66 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). The Bill represents a step towards giving communities greater control over their local transport networks. Colleagues across the House recognise how vital bus services are for connecting people to opportunities, to each other and to the services they rely on. Sadly, buses are too frequently undervalued because they do not have the visible impact of a train.
It is perhaps fitting that the Bill comes at a time when we are experiencing a tube strike in London, and our colleagues based in London can understand what those of us outside London feel having an entirely dysfunctional public transport network.
I want to raise two points that I hope the Minister and colleagues will take on board as we move towards implementation. In my Calder Valley constituency, which the Minister knows well, we have seen a number of services withdrawn or reduced in frequency, particularly in the upper Calder Valley. Those changes have left many residents feeling cut off, especially in areas where alternative transport is simply not available. I welcome the extension of franchising powers to all local authorities. That is long overdue, and it is a step that gives communities such as mine the chance to shape bus networks to make those networks work for them. I urge the Government to consider how these powers can be supported with the necessary funding and guidance, so that councils can act decisively to protect routes that are essential to community life.
The second point I want to raise is about franchising. I support West Yorkshire combined authority’s plans to bring services under public control and to build a network that puts passengers at its heart. Cross-boundary routes—those that run into Lancashire or Greater Manchester—will not automatically be part of the franchise. While the Bill allows for some alternative arrangements, there is a real risk that those routes could be overlooked. We are a border county and a border country, and I am keen to ensure that the needs of my residents in Todmorden who go to work or school in Burnley are not overlooked. I know WYCA is committed to working with neighbouring authorities, and I hope the Government will support that collaboration. Passengers in Calder Valley and across the country do not plan their journeys around administrative boundaries or transport operations, and we need to be mindful of that.
I am confident that the Bill will provide a better, fairer bus network, and I am proud that it is another example of this Government making people’s day-to-day lives better. But we must ensure that isolated communities across boundary routes such as those in Calder Valley are not left behind. I look forward to working with Front-Bench colleagues to ensure that those voices are heard.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 2 brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would extend the eligibility of disabled bus passes.
The current restrictions, which mean disabled bus passes can only be used after 9.30 am, have real and disproportionate consequences for disabled constituents, particularly those who rely on public transport as their only means of getting around. For many disabled people, buses are a lifeline. They are the gateway to essential medical appointments, employment opportunities, education and social connection, and they mean the difference between isolation and independence. In rural areas such as Frome and East Somerset, where bus services are already limited, there is a particular challenge. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, if someone misses the morning bus because their pass is not valid until 9.30 am, that can mean waiting several hours more and being late for work.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause.
In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate.
I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport.
I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do.
Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support.
I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel.
James MacCleary
Day in, day out, I hear from people across my constituency—from Polegate to Plumpton—who want to use the bus but simply cannot do so. People must be at the heart of transport policy, so let me begin with one example from my constituency. I recently heard from a woman in Wilmington village who wants to get to her job in Lewes by bus but cannot do so at present. To do so, she must travel in the wrong direction to Polegate, wait, then take a slow service through multiple villages. What would be a 15-minute drive becomes an hour or more on the bus, so she drives. That is not a lifestyle choice; it is a failure of network design. This Bill could give us the tools to put that right, if we use them properly.
The A27 in my constituency desperately needs a direct service between Eastbourne and Lewes, and we must make that happen. The stops are on the road; there is just no bus to serve them. That is exactly why I support amendment 2, on socially necessary routes, so that journeys to work, schools and health services are guaranteed, even when the market will not deliver. Franchising powers in the Bill mean that our local transport authority could finally design services around what people need, not what happens to be commercially convenient. The new duty to provide socially necessary routes must make that real. Our amendments would ensure that if the market will not deliver, the authority must step in and be properly funded to do so. The A27 express should be at the top of that list.
I recently heard from a young lady in Stone Cross in my constituency who tries to get to college. Buses fail to appear—one recently sailed by her when she was waiting—and that means lost education time. The powers in the Bill on performance, data and enforcement must bite. We must publish stop-level reliability and give local transport authorities the lever to withhold payment for no-shows and require operator recovery plans. We must also back our “headphone dodgers” amendment, so that authorities can make byelaws against sustained antisocial noise. Safe, civil journeys retain passengers.
Much like the case in Stone Cross, I see the same story repeated in the village of Ringmer. An 85-year-old constituent depends on the bus to reach the Tesco in Lewes, yet sometimes it never arrives, and at other times the driver simply drives on by. That is not a public service; it is a gamble. If people are to use these services, they must be able to rely on them. That is why I back amendment 11, on accessible stopping places and reliability. We must ensure that information is clear, that drivers are trained and that passengers are not left stranded. Rural villages across my constituency send the same message: they have gaps, long waits, and first and last buses that do not work for people’s real lives.
Community transport services are a lifeline in rural areas where commercial routes do not run. In my constituency, volunteer-led Cuckmere Buses and CTLA keep people connected. The Sussex Art Shuttle, run by Cuckmere Buses, shows how small, community-driven transport projects can open up access and enrich local lives. These schemes run on tight budgets and good will, yet they deliver where the market will not. Amendment 9 would recognise their value and ensure that funding streams work for them, not against them.
There is also the Flexibus scheme, a forward-thinking initiative from East Sussex county council showing how a local authority can take control and fill the gaps left by traditional services. With booking available by app or phone, it is a practical, people-centred service that makes rural transport work for many. New clause 8, on VAT rules for demand-responsive services, would make it easier for such schemes, allowing councils to innovate locally and deliver real solutions for communities.
Sadly, in Lewes we have lost our bus station. Years of campaigning could not save it. The result is an interchange tacked on to the Phoenix Causeway bridge—busy, exposed and in the wrong place. It is not possible to grow ridership while dismantling the places where people change buses. We should give local transport authorities explicit powers, duties and funding to safeguard and replace our interchanges as part of franchising schemes. That is why new clause 5, on accessibility reports so that bus stations and interchanges are explicitly safeguarded and properly planned, is so important.
The upcoming Budget must unlock much-needed funding for major roads that are congested and therefore delay bus service. I have raised the A259 in my constituency directly with the Prime Minister in this place. It is a vicious cycle: congestion holds back buses, people turn back to cars, and traffic gets worse. Better buses mean fewer cars, and a transition to a zero emissions fleet must be central to how we plan for the future.
Affordability underpins all of this. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 1 would restore the £2 fare cap, which worked well; it put money back in pockets and passengers back on seats. Lifting it is a bus tax on work, study and care. Our new clause would restore the cap and require a formal assessment of the impact of hikes. We go further: new clause 9 would provide free travel for those on carer’s allowance, and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), would remove time restrictions for disabled concessionary passes. This Bill will be judged not by what it promises on paper, but whether it delivers for people who wait at the bus stop, and I hope this Government will deliver that.
Dr Tidball
I rise to speak to new clause 2, which covers issues of accessibility. My older, younger and disabled constituents often tell me that they are left stranded, enduring painfully long waiting times due to unreliable bus services, and facing distressing situations such as toileting issues, missed NHS appointments or arriving late at school. This is the reality of failed bus services faced by many constituents across my Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency as a result of the Conservative legacy. This is unacceptable, as I mentioned on Second Reading, when Reform MPs could not even be bothered to show up—where are they today?
When I was growing up, our South Yorkshire transport system was the envy of the world, but 14 years of the Conservatives’ north-south transport divide and their broken promises of a London-style transport system for South Yorkshire in reality meant that my constituency lost 53% of its bus services, with a paltry 38% spent per head on our doorstep compared with London. And the SL1 tram link bus was scrapped, leaving many of my constituents unable to continue to work or to go to college in Sheffield.
Our local communities have helped build the prosperity of this great nation. From the speciality steelworks in Stocksbridge and the farmers across Penistone, to the advanced manufacturing sites across Chapeltown, my constituents are among the hardest working people we could ever meet.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The hon. Lady and I share a huge concern for ensuring access to all types of transport, including buses, for the disabled of every kind. Does she agree that the strike in London, which is crippling transport services, is causing greater harm to the disabled community here than in any other part of the country?
Dr Tidball
The accessibility plans that this Bill will now put in place will dramatically improve the accessibility of bus networks up and down this country.
My constituents have the potential to be the beating heart of British growth, with good, well-connected public transport that unleashes their potential. Our Labour Government have already begun to power this change for transport. South Yorkshire is already set to benefit from £1.5 billion of extra transport funding under this Government, adding £20 billion to our regional economy. I am proud to support the Bill, which will finally end the Tories’ postcode lottery of bus services and will save and create vital bus routes by supporting every community to take back control of our bus network. Through new powers to set routes, fares and services, communities will finally have a proper say in the essential services that they rely on, instead of routes and fares being left to the whim of unaccountable private operators.
Transport inequality leads to health inequality too, which is why it is fantastic that as a result of the work done in the Lords, the Bill will also require local transport authorities—as I said to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths)—to produce bus network accessibility plans. Furthermore, driver disability awareness training will become mandatory for the first time.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I will speak mainly to new clauses 32 and 33 in my name.
There is a lot to like in the Bill, but it is at its weakest where it touches on rural areas. That is a great shame, because if we could solve transport, we could also solve the rural productivity problem. Economic inactivity is nearly two-and-a-half times higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas, and that is directly related to transport issues. If we could boost rural productivity to urban levels, it would fix the Chancellor’s Budget deficit in one go.
The key freedom that the Bill brings is to support local authorities that want to establish a bus franchise or to set up their own municipal service. If we stand back to look at the scale of the challenge, however, do we really think that that will be enough to reverse the long-term decline in rural areas? The answer must be no. Given how cash-strapped and under-resourced most local authorities are, it is clear that most will be unable to take advantage of that freedom without additional support.
In my previous life as a West Sussex county councillor, I served on a committee considering a bus improvement plan, but the measures we were given to look at were all small and tactical. No one on that committee believed that the plan would change the curve. Too many local authorities long ago surrendered to a tacit acceptance of managed decline. That has to change—hence my new clause 33, which would set out a new duty actively to promote and increase bus usage.
The key paradox that must be solved is why, if public demand for bus services is so high, usage is always dropping. Clearly, price is one issue, but the service has also become increasingly mismatched with local need. In West Sussex, a 2021 survey found that 80% of residents had stopped using buses because of a lack of a suitable route or infrequency of service—that is a huge percentage of the potential market to give away. The problem, especially in rural areas, is that what we have left today is a legacy service—the ghostly outline of routes and frequencies that existed years ago. We have fought a long defensive war of attrition, and we have been losing. Individual routes have been salami-sliced to destruction. That is why I have tabled new clause 32 to require local authorities to consult in advance on significant service changes.
In my constituency of Horsham, residents of Partridge Green discovered they were losing their direct No. 17 service to town only when they saw the new timetable. In Slinfold, the No. 63 was removed altogether, also without any warning. The county council says that the changes are nothing to do with them, and they are the responsibility of the commercial operator, but the operator says that they are up to the council. There is simply no one left at the wheel of our local bus service.
When I looked at the huge public reaction as villagers fought to save their services after the axe had already fallen, I could not help but wonder what might have been. What might have happened if we could have harnessed that enthusiasm to create a service that met people’s transport needs? We have been beaten down, over many years, into accepting that it is impossible to fix the problem, yet Switzerland, Austria and Germany, in areas with far lower population densities than many areas of the UK, are providing all-day, every-hour services, seven days a week. We can do that too, if we have the will.
It is good to see bus services getting legislative attention, and I appreciate that, but I hope that the Government do not think that this Bill will be nearly enough by itself. I urge the Government to make a special study of the needs of rural areas, which have been a recurring theme during the debate, and work out what it would take to genuinely reverse decline.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I support new clause 22, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who is temporarily not in his place. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the minimum bus service standards required for communities in England.
What Members notice when they come to London from rural constituencies, such as my constituency in Suffolk, are all the red buses, all over the place. Routes run from early in the morning until late into the evening, in no small part because of the years of excellent Labour administration that Londoners have enjoyed. Out in Suffolk, we certainly do not have a fully integrated bus service. For a start, there are simply not enough buses. From 2010, a decade of declining public funding left the interwoven jumble of local bus maps looking decisively threadbare. From 2018 to 2024, 18% of bus services in my county council area simply vanished.
In Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, I have been supporting residents fighting to save local bus routes, and I am sure that many hon. Members will have been doing exactly the same in their areas. In Bury St Edmunds, we managed to get the 73 and 73A bus routes retained, which are essential for getting children to school at the Thurston community college. At Marham Park, where residents were in danger of being fully cut off, we did the same, thanks to £8 million of funding from the Government. In the years to come, we will further undo the loss of bus services: some 17 new or improved bus routes are rolling out just this month across Suffolk.
If people are lucky enough to live on a route that survived the last 15 years, the problem is that they will be hard pressed to find a bus that goes anywhere after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Imagine a lady from the village of Honington, in my constituency, who has to attend a 4.30 pm appointment at the West Suffolk hospital about her dodgy knee. The 332 bus runs from Honington to Bury St Edmunds four times a day, so she catches the 2.40 pm bus and arrives in Bury St Edmunds with an hour to spare. She has her appointment and she gets out of the hospital after an hour, so at 5.30 pm she is standing outside the hospital and she cannot get home. She has missed the last bus and she is stuck in Bury St Edmunds. She cannot march 10 miles home, because she has a dodgy knee, and she has no friends, so she gets a taxi. A taxi is £35, but our imaginary lady has no choice—she has to pay that £35.
We capped the cost of a bus fare at £3, but we all know that for lots of real people in rural areas, inadequate bus service means that transport costs easily spiral out of control. That is why we need to critically examine the minimum bus service standards required across communities in England. Many Members have spoken about CPRE, which has mentioned that some countries such as Switzerland legally mandate public transport frequencies for communities of different sizes. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire —who still has not returned to the Chamber—will ensure that progress is made towards undoing some of the inequalities that have built up in transport, and will move us much closer to the unified transport model that we all know we need.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I rise to support amendments that will serve to ensure the most vulnerable and isolated people in our communities are not cut off from employment, health services, education and leisure. I will start with new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who has just returned to the Chamber. That new clause would remove the start time from the use of disabled bus passes. I must declare an interest, as my own son George has one of those passes. It is a crucial element of helping young people with disabilities to gain their independence, and for teenagers and young adults with additional needs, it is a far more cost-effective option for accessing college and school than providing costly and isolating taxis.
The bus pass that George and many of his classmates hold cannot be used on the way to school—in our case, that is two buses and two fares—but can be used on the return journey. While that causes frustration to parents such as me, for others, it is completely unaffordable. It forces many of them to use the offered council taxis, which are crippling councils. For those who are able to drive, blue badges are not time-restricted; why should those on a bus pass be discriminated against? We know that people with disabilities are less likely to be in employment, so anything that reduces barriers to work should be grasped by this Government. When this issue was raised in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the Minister pointed to the cost, but as the proposal would affect only disabled bus passes and not the whole concessionary bus pass scheme, it would apply to only 10% of passes, so the cost is fairly low.
I turn to Liberal Democrat new clauses 7 and 16, as well as new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), which relate to young people. The very first motion I put to my party conference, back in 2014, proposed extending discounted bus fares for young people. That policy made it into the following Lib Dem manifesto, and has remained in some form ever since. I cited a case then that applies now: that of a young person from Bere Regis who secured an apprenticeship in Bournemouth. They were no longer eligible for a free bus pass to access the college course, because for some reason, when the age of participation was increased, the age of bus travel was not. They had to take several buses each day to access their job. The cost of doing so took up such a large proportion of their income, and the service to their village was so poor, that they had to give up their apprenticeship.
If we are to make bus services sustainable into the future, they need to be a genuine choice for young people: an alternative to buying a car or a motorbike. If we are to deal with congestion and air quality and reach our net zero targets, we need public transport to be a real option for everyone. Achieving long-term change typically starts with young people. It makes sense—young people are familiar with using buses for school, so extending discounts so that they have them available as they start in the world of work or higher education is most likely to deliver the long-term change that we need. Students from the Purbeck school and Magna academy have all written to me confused about why they were not eligible for discounted bus fares, even though they were now expected to stay at school. This policy feels like a clear oversight from a previous Government, and one that could be easily fixed by this Government.
I also support my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), who has proposed a cap extension for school services. Not extending the cap to those services is incredibly unfair. I have also been lobbied on the issue, particularly by families living in Merley, who are just about within the three-mile window.
During my village tour in the summer—whether I was in Bere Regis, Gaunt’s Common, Shapwick or Hinton Martell—the No. 1 issue that came up was buses. Communities that are cut off from bus services cannot thrive, so I welcome amendments 6, 7, 28 and 29 and new clauses 4 and 15, which would ensure that such communities are considered and—whether it be via commercial services or community minibuses—that small villages are not cut off. It seems ironic that British people always use the phrase, “You wait for a bus and then two come along at once.” For thousands of my constituents in Mid Dorset and North Poole villages, just one every so often would be nice.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
My amendment 66 and new clause 46 are not intended to change Government policy, nor to bind the hands of locally elected mayors or transport authorities—quite the opposite. Amendment 66, which my hon Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, talked about some considerable time ago, would require local transport authorities to set out a clear, transparent formula for calculating whether a service is socially necessary and then to use that formula in deciding how funding is allocated. That reflects recommendation 53 in the Transport Committee’s “Buses connecting communities” report.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Two weeks ago, the No. 61 bus made its final journey—yet another bus service my constituents relied on has been lost, with no apparent thought given to how people are supposed to get to work, school, college or hospital appointments, or simply from A to B. The withdrawal of the 61, which took residents directly to Winchester hospital, will make life significantly harder for many of my constituents. That is why I support new clause 37, which would guarantee every town a regular bus service to hospitals and GP surgeries, and amendment 2, which would ensure that socially necessary routes include those serving hospitals, schools and colleges.
As well as the 61, we have seen the withdrawal of the 461, the major route that served Peter Symonds college, and the 46, which was an important service for the residents of Valley Park. They were cut because they were not considered commercially viable, but healthcare and education are essential services. No one should be left isolated from a school, college or hospital simply because a bus company cannot turn a profit.
In addition to cuts to bus services, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council’s decision to withdraw discretionary top-up enhancements to the English national concessionary travel scheme has increased challenges for my disabled constituents. I support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), because disabled people must not be unfairly restricted in when they can travel.
The removal of the companion bus pass and the restriction of free travel to between 9.30 am and 11 pm creates fresh barriers for many disabled people, including the 55,100 visually impaired residents in Hampshire. Last month, I visited the Guide Dogs community team centre in Chandler’s Ford, where I spoke to constituents who are deeply worried about the cuts. One told me she now struggles to reach medical appointments, while another, due to her disability, prefers early morning buses to avoid bright sunlight, which causes her severe eye pain. I have been supporting Guide Dogs’ campaign to make sure that people with a visual impairment can travel independently and with confidence.
Many visually impaired constituents understandably require assistance to travel safely, often relying on friends and family to accompany them to work, school and medical appointments. I have heard from constituents that losing access to the companion pass has meant that they are travelling less and resorting to costlier methods of travel, including taxis, to get around. The savings to the council are minimal compared with the cost to my constituents’ quality of life. That is why new clause 2, which would remove time restrictions on disabled concessionary passes, and new clause 9, which would extend free travel to carers, are so important. They would help restore independence and dignity to those who need public transport the most.
I hope the Government will accept the amendments that I have addressed and ensure that socially necessary routes are protected, because my constituents need affordable, reliable buses now.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee, and I am pleased to see the Bill back before the House. Although it does good work, it simply does not go far enough in its ambition or its delivery of the change we need—that is apparent from the number of amendments tabled on Report.
One of the really important amendments for me is new clause 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I spent the final week in August visiting dozens of North Norfolk’s villages as part of my summer tour. I heard about a huge range of issues, but a consistent theme across my area was frustration with our buses. Shirley and David in Hindringham told me that two buses a day just is not enough to get them to the places they need to go at the times they want to get there. They are right: that is indicative of a system that serves nobody in rural areas like mine.
It is not just anecdotes that back up that feeling; the numbers do, too. Those of us in the east of England get less than half the spend per head on transport as those in London. We accept that the transport system in our capital is different and that, overall, more money ends up being needed to accommodate the millions who need it, but to spend on each individual Londoner more than double the amount that is spent on my residents is patently unfair—and that is before we consider the advantage that urban areas have. They are set up for carrying out public transport. Running a bus network through a busy, well-populated area will always be easier and cheaper per head than having to dart around country lanes, picking up at small villages a handful of times a day.
I am excited about the prospect of franchising, which could bring real benefits to Norfolk’s bus services. However, rural areas like mine are embarking on the unknown. Franchising has a track record in big cities such as Manchester and London, but how we make it work in other areas with different characteristics remains unknown. That is why new clause 12 is so important. We should not be prescriptive, and nobody wants to force areas into pre-designed templates, but we have to offer them suitable support and off-the-shelf models so that they do not go through it totally alone.
As the Transport Committee, of which I am a member, found in its “Buses connecting communities” inquiry, there is a lot to learn from elsewhere when it comes to running successful bus networks, especially in rural areas. Without providing some of that knowledge in the form of clearly researched and defined transport model options, I worry that we are setting up another postcode lottery, whereby the quality of how these new powers are used depends on whether a transport authority got lucky in trying to make a new scheme work.
I spoke in Committee about how one such model should be a rural bus hub-and-spoke network, which would give the most coverage possible to as many areas as possible. Trying to reach every single village all the time just is not feasible, and we have to accept that. What is feasible is making sure that every village is near to a rural bus hub that is accessible through walking, cycling or a short drive. These hubs, if connected to one another, will finally create a rural network. We have to start challenging old ideas about how rural public transport works, and to be bold in the solutions we take forward.
I am very supportive of new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). To its credit, Norfolk county council has voluntarily expanded the times when people can use a disability bus pass, and I have heard positive testimony of how this has helped many people in my area. People across the country should be able to benefit from that equally, so I hope the Government will support new clause 2 tonight.
I make no apology for constantly banging on about buses. It cannot be beyond us to build a rural bus network that takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking, but I urge them to seize the opportunity before them. They should not let this Bill go through as an unfunded damp squib that creates some new powers, with no help in their delivery. I hope they will take the suggestions of Members on board tonight, and make this the best possible Bill to drive forward the much-needed rural bus revolution.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I will speak to new clauses 1 and 2, and amendment 9. This Government are giving more powers to local authorities, such as the franchising of local bus services. They expect councils to fund more bus services, while they undermine and reduce councils’ core funding at the same time. Our amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central Government funding to support franchise schemes. That is essential because, due to the pandemic, bus service usage massively declined in my constituency of Wokingham.
Since then, the Lib Dem-run council has acted to improve local bus services, increasing the frequency of services on key routes. It is now predicted that bus services in Wokingham will recover to pre-pandemic rates. The Lib Dem-run council has done that despite being one of the lowest-funded unitary authorities in the country, but Labour’s new council funding formula will take £47 million away from Wokingham over the next three years. How can the Labour Government expect councils such as Wokingham to improve services and take on the responsibilities created by this Bill without proper support from Government, as is called for in amendment 3?
I wholeheartedly support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which proposes that time restrictions be removed from disabled people’s concessionary passes. That would be widely welcomed by many of my constituents.
I also support new clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would restore the £2 fare cap. That would help younger and older constituents in my Wokingham constituency.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
There is a lot to welcome in the Bill, and I support the overarching aim. However, there are several important details that very much concern small operators and community transport providers in my Witney constituency, and I shall speak on their behalf. They include West Oxfordshire Community Transport, including Andrew Coles, Andrew Lyon and their team, and David Miles and Amanda, who have done so much to get the First & Last Mile moving.
My fear is that the franchising frameworks and new training requirements stipulated in the Bill will squeeze out community operators and that the social and economic cost will be severe, particularly in rural areas where mainstream operators have withdrawn. Section 22 community bus permit holders, who provide transport on a not-for-profit basis without the need for a full public service vehicle operator licence, ensure a service in communities that would otherwise be completely unserved. The Bill currently does not recognise this category at all. That raises a couple of worries.
One particular worry is that the new driver safeguarding and training requirements could become unworkable for small fleets. The Bill’s provisions do not clearly differentiate between private hire vehicles—dedicated school buses—and public service buses which may sometimes carry schoolchildren as part of the general route. In practice, that means that every driver would need full safeguarding training, regardless of the service they normally operate.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Over the summer recess, I held surgeries in 52 towns and villages across my constituency and an issue that came up again and again and again was buses, or rather the lack of them. Many communities in my rural constituency are now effectively cut off. Some have just one or two buses a day, but others, such as Bigbury, St Ann’s Chapel and Ringmore, have no service at all. Since 2015, bus journeys in Devon have fallen by 40%. Under the previous Conservative Government, services were cut, scaled back or made so unreliable that they are no longer usable. I do not think it is a coincidence that not a single Conservative Back Bencher is in the House to talk about the state of our bus services.
Since the election last year, the cuts have continued. The Gold bus, which goes from Plymouth and Torbay and is a vital connection for lots of rural communities between larger economic centres, has been downgraded this month. This is not just about inconvenience; it is about opportunity or the lack of it. Buses connect people to jobs, education, healthcare and each other. Without a convenient, frequent and affordable service, people of all ages are being left behind. In some areas, the last bus leaves before the working day ends, stranding carers, hospitality workers and students, and stifling our visitor economies. That is why I support amendments 2, 5 and 6, which require local transport authorities to identify socially necessary routes and ensure service provision where commercial services are unable to meet demand.
Transport planning must reflect the reality of people’s daily lives, and access to healthcare and education should not be dictated by commercial viability. Devon has the largest county road network in the country, but only seven commercially viable routes. We need more buses, not fewer, to encourage more regular usage—it becomes a virtuous circle.
Public transport plays a crucial role in ironing out inequalities. In a session on child poverty this morning in this place, transport came up several times as an element that is contributing to child poverty levels. When I visit schools and colleges, I regularly hear about the prohibitive cost of public transport. Even just a few pounds for a journey is a significant amount for a student and hits disadvantaged students the hardest. This is why I support new clauses 6 and 17 to offer discounts for under-25s and those in post-16 education, to ensure that transport is not a barrier to education or employment.
Another issue affecting residents in my constituency is the postcode lottery on concessionary bus passes. In Devon and Torbay, as many others have said, usage is restricted to after 9.30 am on weekdays, which means that residents may not be able to attend early medical appointments or get to work on time. As this Government are keen to encourage disabled people back into the workplace, that must be looked at.
Devon county council tells me that the revenue support grant mechanism provided by central Government has fallen substantially since it was introduced, to the point that the scheme is now primarily financially supported through councils’ own revenue budgets. Concessionary travel in the Devon county council area is expected to cost nearly £8 million this financial year, while the cost of offering pre-9.30 am travel to all passholders is estimated to be £2 million per annum. I am really proud to support new clause 2, put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), which would remove time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes, but local authorities must be properly funded for it.
In the face of all the challenges, local people are stepping up, and I would like to highlight the incredible community-run services we have in South Devon, including Bob the Bus, the West Dart bus and the Coleridge bus—groups helping to fight rural isolation, reducing loneliness and providing a vital lifeline to those who would otherwise be cut off. These services are under growing pressure. Small transport operators should be prioritised for grants from local transport authorities, ensuring that they can continue to support those who rely on their services. I therefore support amendment 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), whose work on the Bill I commend.
Public transport in rural communities is a basic service, but right now, in far too many parts of South Devon, it simply does not exist. While I support the many positive measures in the Bill, we must go further to fully address the needs of rural areas and ensure that no community is cut off. Decent public transport alleviates poverty, reduces the number of cars on the road and enables the young, the elderly and those who cannot drive or afford a car to participate fully in the economic and social life of their communities. It does require serious investment, but the gains to be had from this financial commitment are exponential.
The previous Government wasted £2.5 billion on the cancelled leg of High Speed 2, which is almost enough to fund a service to every village every hour of every day across England—imagine the transformational power of that if the right choices were made.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics.
On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses.
I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality.
Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22.
Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising.
Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility.
My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.
Jerome Mayhew
We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.
I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.
I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.
Jerome Mayhew
I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?
Tom Gordon
The shadow Minister mentioned how the Conservative party came to change its view on my hon. Friend’s amendment on audible noises. One thing that has not come up during the debate is his party’s position on new clause 2, which would extend concessionary bus passes. Given that the argument is an economic one and his party wants to see disabled people getting to work, will he support that tonight?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible.
Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas.
The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy?
Jerome Mayhew
I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it.
Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.
Simon Lightwood
With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.
As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.
Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.
I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient.
Jerome Mayhew
I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.
Simon Lightwood
I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?
I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it
“achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”
Simon Lightwood
I would not stand there so proud of overseeing 300,000 miles fewer travelled by buses under the Conservative party.
Moving to the matter of concessionary travel, let me begin by recognising the strength of support for new clause 2 in the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon). Although the intention of that amendment and others on concessionary travel is understandable, the ENCTS costs around £700 million annually, so any extension of statutory entitlements must be carefully considered to ensure financial sustainability.
Having received a good outcome from the bus funding in this spending round, we will shortly make a multi-year allocation to local authorities to support bus services locally. The multi-year nature of these allocations will enable local authorities to plan their bus services with greater certainty and negotiate the best value provision from bus operators. Local authorities already have the power to offer additional concessions beyond the statutory scheme funded locally. For example, in the year ending March 2025, 66% of travel concession authorities offered concessionary travel to companions of disabled people. I would also note that a review of the ENCTS was conducted under the previous Government in 2024, including consideration of travel times, and we are currently reviewing this for next steps.
On the matter of travel for police officers, many operators already offer free travel to police officers. We are discussing with the industry how we can build on that offer and increase awareness, given the importance of safety on buses. This work is being led by the Confederation of Passenger Transport, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) to discuss that further.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is good news that 66% of local authorities recognise the importance of companion bus passes for those disabled people who cannot otherwise use a bus, but given the lack of logic of giving somebody a pass that they cannot use, is this not one of those cases that ought to be taken away from discretion and simply added to statute as a matter of common sense?
Simon Lightwood
We believe in passing the power and the funding down to local areas to make these decisions. A multi-year funding settlement has been reached and details of that will be provided to local authorities in due course. They already have the power and they will have the funding and the ability to do just that.
I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for tabling amendment 58. The Bill seeks to remove the existing requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. This is a purely administrative step and has no effect. It occurs before a franchising assessment has been produced, so the Secretary of State has no evidence at all on whether to support or block a move towards franchising. The Bill’s purpose is to help streamline and simplify bus franchising and, in turn, open up the option of bus franchising to all local transport authorities. Clause 1 is consistent with that aim. It puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field and will speed up the process for those authorities pursuing bus franchising. For this reason, I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
I will now address amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and amendment 59 from the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham together. I am aware of the recent campaign by the hon. Member for Wimbledon regarding noise nuisance on the bus network, and I can confirm that the Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour on buses, including headphone dodging. In Committee, I outlined the existing regulations in place, which set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses, so I will not repeat them here.
Further to those existing powers, clause 28 of the Bill provides scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours, and that could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour. Of course, Conservatives Members would know this if they had bothered to read the Bill, but they obviously had not noticed this when they were talking to the press about headphone dodging. As such, these amendments are not necessary and I would ask right hon. and hon. Members not to press them.
I move next to the issue of fare caps. The previous Government left no funding to maintain any form of cap beyond 2024. We stepped in with a £3 cap to avoid a cliff edge and to ensure that fares remained affordable. The fare cap captures around one fifth of bus fares. This reflects passengers’ use of other forms of ticketing, such as a weekly season ticket. As a result of the recent spending review, funding has been secured so that authorities can provide targeted interventions if they so choose. School-only services were fully considered when designing the £3 fare cap scheme, and it was determined that they should not be included.
On amendment 23, the Bill introduces socially necessary local services as a measure. The £2 fare cap ended in December 2024 prior to this measure coming into force. The expectation is that it will take some time for local transport authorities to identify socially necessary local services in their areas. An evaluation of the £2 fare cap has already been published by the Department for Transport. It looked at the first 10 months of the previous fare cap. Evidence suggested that the scheme delivered low value for money.
Tom Gordon
The Minister made an interesting point earlier about allowing local transport authorities and mayors to make decisions when it comes to buses. Why does he think that a national mandatory bus fare cap should apply but not a national mandate allowing access for disability passes? Why is it that some decisions should be taken locally and others nationally, and how does he reconcile those differences?
Simon Lightwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The national fare cap has been successful. We continued to expand it to ensure that it was affordable across the board. I hear what he says, but I go back to my points: we were giving local areas the power to do exactly what he is talking about.
We are undertaking an evaluation of the £3 bus fare cap. The outcomes will be known in the coming year. I hope hon. Members will withdraw the amendments.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the £3 fare cap is an essential lifeline for people taking the bus from Burnley to Blackburn hospital, which was a service that I managed to secure through work with local transit companies and Lancashire county council?
Simon Lightwood
I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.
I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.
On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.
The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.
On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.
Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.
Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.
The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.
On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.
If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.
Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes
“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”—(Tom Gordon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Stephen Morgan)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to report an error in the announcement of the Division results for the first vote this evening, which was on new clause 2. I can confirm that the correct numbers were 69 for the Ayes and 300 for the Noes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Teller for that point of order and for correcting the record. I hereby direct the Clerks to correct the numbers and confirm that the Ayes were 69 and the Noes were 300.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government believe that reliable, affordable and accessible transport is not simply a luxury to be enjoyed by some, but that it should be everyone’s right to access essential services, travel to work or school, fulfil aspirations and expand horizons. Today we take a step closer to that vision, because after 14 years of failed deregulation, seeing services cut, routes axed and fares rise, we are finally taking our lifeline bus services off of life support. This vital legislation ushers in the biggest change to our buses in a generation. It means improved services for passengers and protection for socially necessary routes. Greener buses will be rolled out faster. Accessibility and safety standards will be raised across the board, and buses will be integrated across local transport so that it is easier and simpler to get around.
Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. It transfers control away from private interests and towards the public good, and away from central Government and towards the local leaders who know their areas best. They and they alone will choose how best to meet local transport needs, be it through franchising, enhanced partnerships or locally owned bus companies. My message to the public is simple: buses will get better.
I thank hon. Members for the scrutiny and support they have provided throughout the Bill’s passage. I specifically recognise Opposition Members including the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for holding the Government to account and for their considered questioning. It has been a respectful and constructive process, which I must say has been refreshing.
Many of the measures in the Bill build on the national bus strategy, which I know the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), played a role in implementing, particularly in Greater Manchester. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), for his excellent work and dedication in steering the Bill through the House. I know that the genesis of the Bill stretches back a long time, so I also acknowledge the passion and foresight of my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), in making the case for the Bill and her advocacy for a better bus network for all. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to all the parliamentary staff, including the Clerks and Chairs, as well as to my officials, who have worked at pace to help deliver this landmark legislation.
Buses connect us to the things that matter most, yet for too long they have been a symbol of decline. That changes now. After committing substantial funding for bus services, we are now getting on with fundamental reform, fixing the faults of the industry, transferring power to the local level and putting passengers and local communities first. Change is coming to our buses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Holden
What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the
“DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”.
That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers.
There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results.
The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them?
After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill.
Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all.
In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.
Mr Kohler
My party supports this Bill. After decades of failure, with the deregulation orchestrated by the Tories, this is clearly a move in the right direction. It is not ambitious enough, and I regret deeply your failure to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap, the failure to remove the time limits on concessionary travel for disabled people and your failure to address—
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly used the words “you” and “yours” throughout this afternoon’s proceedings. Please can he do better?
Mr Kohler
And the Government’s failure to address the awful scourge of headphone dodgers. Most fundamentally, the Bill will not work unless it is properly funded. At the moment it is not, and the Government cannot hide behind localism when it needs proper funding. However, we will support the Bill.
Keighley Picture House
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition to save Keighley Picture House from closure. When Bradford council announced its intention to sell the cinema building, there was deep concern that the Picture House cinema—a key landmark, open since 1913—would close with it, as it was advertised for a redevelopment opportunity. Residents of Keighley deeply value their cultural heritage. This petition, which I launched to make clear to Bradford council people’s deep feeling that selling the building was not an option, has received 5,421 signatures. Losing the Picture House would be another blow to our high street—one that Keighley simply cannot afford.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Keighley and Ilkley
Declares that Keighley Picture House has been part of the town’s heritage since 1913 and must be saved from redevelopment by Bradford Council.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work constructively with Bradford Council and Keighley Town Council to guarantee the future of Keighley Picture House as a cinema and cultural venue for generations to come.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003111]
Urgent Care Centres: Hillingdon
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This Adjournment debate is on the future of the minor injuries unit at Mount Vernon hospital. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who, despite representing a Bristol constituency, has a great deal of knowledge of my area having grown up in it, and to the Secretary of State for a number of conversations that have recognised that the loss of such a unit runs contrary to the 10-year plan set out to the House. It would have a much broader impact, beyond the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust, which is the overarching NHS body for both the Mount Vernon hospital and the Hillingdon hospital site to the south.
That is reflected in the fact that more than 20,000 people have signed my petition expressing concern about the loss of the service and calling for an opportunity to think again. I place on record my thanks to the Members of Parliament in a number of neighbouring constituencies who have supported me with that petition and supported their local residents. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is present, has maintained the long tradition of Hillingdon MPs working together on issues that affect their constituencies. My neighbours in Harrow East, Hertsmere, South West Hertfordshire, South Buckinghamshire and Harrow West have all expressed a similar view. They understand the impact that the closure will have on their constituencies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, to whom I spoke beforehand. The support for what he is proposing goes much further afield. We recently lost a minor injuries unit in a small town to a centralised urgent care A&E unit. Like him, I urge caution. I am informed that the merging of A&E and urgent care has affected waiting times, with ill teenagers lying in a cold waiting room for upwards of 15 hours. Does he agree that it is imperative that the centralisation of services does not leave worse waiting times and standards of care? That is the very issue that he is referring to.
David Simmonds
I am grateful to the hon. Member. What he described is similar to the concerns outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and others across the wider area, as well as by many people who have been in touch with me directly.
We know that minor injuries units in general, and the one at Mount Vernon in particular, are valued by people for whom A&E is not always the best place to seek treatment. Many local schools have been in touch to say that if there is an injury during the school day, minor injuries units are the ideal place for a child to get the treatment that they need. For older residents, particularly if they are not in the best of health and perhaps not up to the journey to an A&E department—many of which are under significant pressure—a minor injuries unit is the place to be. I know the Secretary of State and Ministers have responded very positively to the pleas of a number of Members across the House who have asked for the prospect of a minor injuries unit opening to serve their constituencies as part of the 10-year plan, so to see one lost that is already providing a good service seems to me a great shame.
The Minister will know that the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust has been financially challenged for many years; indeed, during my days as a non-executive director of the Hillingdon primary care trust, in the days of the last Labour Government, the overspend was significant. It is a challenge that has persisted to this day under Governments of all parties, despite numerous initiatives to try to resolve it. That is reflected in the poor state of the main hospital building, which is pending a rebuild. I should declare for the record that my wife is a doctor in that building. I know the Minister and the Government have accepted the programme of works set in place previously, which was granted planning permission by the local authority and announced under the last Government, to provide a new district general hospital at Hillingdon.
I am sure the Minister will know, because of her local knowledge, that we need to recognise that Hillingdon serves Heathrow airport as well as the normal district hospital population. The airport has a very large population of transitory people coming through it, many of whom are taken ill and add to the pressure on A&E. In addition, we have the largest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and a significant number of people in immigration detention, pending deportation. This is not just a hospital serving the normal day-to-day needs of the population area; it has particular and unique pressures, and a minor injuries unit is a means of beginning to take off some of that pressure for the benefit of local residents.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My constituency neighbour perfectly describes the very difficult situation in Hillingdon inherited by the trust leadership and this Government, such as the hotels opened under the Conservatives putting pressure on the local system. I am pleased that the Government have committed to close hotels across the country and deal with this issue and are reviewing the fair funding of local authorities. That is much overdue in Hillingdon.
The hon. Gentleman describes the situation in Hillingdon hospital, with the need for a rebuild after 14 years with no funding. Again, I am pleased that the Minister, who knows Hillingdon very well—I am sure that did not influence the decision—finally provided the almost £1.4 billion that the hospital needs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those are positive steps forward? I agree that the decision on Mount Vernon hospital is concerning, and I have raised those concerns with the trust’s executive leadership myself. Does he agree that there have been positive steps forward on those long-term issues and that we need to continue to work together to improve neighbourhood healthcare?
David Simmonds
I am grateful that my constituency neighbour is here. Had he the same degree of history in Hillingdon as myself and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am sure he would recall that the hotels were set up and opened as part of a dispersal programme started under the Labour Government in the mid-2000s and led by Andy Burnham, who is now the Mayor of Greater Manchester. I know that has placed ongoing pressure on the local area, but the number of people put into that initial accommodation who are now stuck locally is very large.
I am sure the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) shares my concern that, under the recent announcements about local authority funding, Hillingdon remains broadly the same as it always has been, but I welcome his commitment to carry on the work started under the previous Government for the rebuild of Hillingdon hospital. I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be very aware that the work undertaken on sewerage and electronics for that new build over the last few years has presented a significant challenge to residents in accessing the hospital—I am sure his constituents complain about it as much as mine have done.
Indeed, the challenges that will come during the rebuilding process of the hospital on what is currently its car park are a further argument for why a minor injuries unit is important in this period. It creates a bit of additional capacity to help with potentially challenging times at A&E and the difficult logistical challenge of accessing a hospital whose car park is already constrained and will be the building site for a new hospital. All those are additional reasons why a minor injuries unit remains important.
It is noteworthy in this context that the move away from an open access unit to appointment-only, which took place following covid, has significantly reduced the footfall at the Mount Vernon unit and has driven up the cost per visit compared with the previous position. This is part of a pattern that we have also seen in the Harrow part of my constituency at the Pinn medical centre, where the loss of a walk-in facility has led to more patients attending the local A&E, to longer waits and, ultimately, to increased cost to the NHS, because A&E attendances are more expensive than nurse-led walk-in services such as that which is available at Mount Vernon.
The Minister knows all this personally. She knows how much value the local community—not just in Hillingdon, not just in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but across north-west London and into neighbouring Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire—places on that service and how often Members of Parliament representing places like Watford and the Harrow constituencies have been in touch to share their concerns about the delays and challenges faced by patients attending A&Es in Watford, Hillingdon or Northwick Park, which are the main destinations for alternative treatment.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He has highlighted the issues in his constituency, and he is lucky enough that Hillingdon hospital is going to be refurbished. Given the delays to the Watford General refurbishment, where spades will not be in the ground until 2032 at the earliest, does he agree that Mount Vernon is even more critical for the surrounding areas with the capacity that it provides?
David Simmonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, another constituency neighbour, for the support that he has lent to this campaign on behalf of his constituents. In a busy capital city, where there are all kinds of challenges arising not just from the airport but from our transport links, the pressure on some of those A&Es is higher than the NHS funding formula has traditionally recognised, and services such as minor injuries units have come into being over the years to make sure that that provision is there.
I know that my constituency neighbours’ constituents attend Mount Vernon not just to go to the minor injuries unit; it is also home to a cancer centre, a hospice, a private hospital, a general practitioners—a whole variety of NHS and private healthcare services—as well as to research and scanning, and nurses’ accommodation. All those things are incredibly important to the local community.
My asks of the Minister are straightforward. She understands as well as we all do that the NHS is always under financial pressure regardless of which party is in government, and she understands personally how much this unit at Mount Vernon hospital matters to local people across an area that is much wider than that served solely by the Hillingdon hospitals NHS foundation trust. She also understands that the vision of the 10-year plan puts great emphasis on out-of-hospital care. The commitment to the Northwood and Pinner cottage hospital started under the previous Government and now under construction at the site in my constituency is an example of the willingness of both this Government and the previous one to invest in those types of service. It therefore seems perverse to be closing down one such service that is already successfully in operation and that is both valued and has the potential to further reduce the cost and service pressures on our local NHS.
I ask the Minister simply to intervene with the trust and to ask her officials to engage with it about the wider impact that the closure will have beyond the Hillingdon hospitals trust alone. From the trust’s perspective, moving those staff and that budget on to the main hospital site will improve the look of its bottom line, but in the long term it will increase the costs to the NHS for those patients and reduce the quality of the service that they receive. Will she therefore consider encouraging the trust to move back to an open access model, as used to operate at the site, which would further reduce the number of A&E visits, which are costly to the NHS and stressful and time-consuming for patients? Will she confirm to the House that she notes the concerns that have been expressed so profoundly and across party by MPs from Hertsmere, Beaconsfield, South West Hertfordshire, East Harrow, and Hayes and Harlington, some of whom have taken the time even during a tube strike to be present for this debate to demonstrate the importance that they place on it?
Some have said that the more than 20,000 local people who signed the petition were expressing faux outrage. Those 20,000 people value the service. Many of them, including myself, have used it over the years. We know the benefit that it brings. We know that it is in accordance with this Government’s vision and strategy for the NHS. We know that, used properly, it can reduce costs to the NHS and improve the quality of service, not just for my constituents but for all our constituents. Will the Minister please intervene, ask the trust to think again and find a way to secure this valued service for the future, for local residents?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing this debate. He mentioned that his wife works in the system, so I pay tribute to her for her service in the local trust.
As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, I am a Hillingdon girl; it is where I was brought up. My brother was born in Hillingdon hospital, some 59 years ago. It was a great pleasure to be there recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). Some years ago, I predicted that we might have a Labour MP there, so after being around the area for a long time, I am personally very pleased to see that.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tempted me to move into the wider areas of what are rightly a to-ing and fro-ing on some of the bigger pressures in that part of north-west London and into Hertfordshire. I will not go into that, but it is absolutely right that hon. Members use this platform to share their campaigning on behalf of their constituents.
Service changes such as these are always hard and they are rarely popular. I have been the Member of Parliament for Bristol South for more than a decade, and before that I was an NHS manager, so I have seen many service changes and reconfigurations over the years. Like the hon. Gentleman, I was also a non-executive director in a past life. All the changes that I have seen were done through good consultation, with strong clinical leadership and a good clinical case, and involved patients and the public.
I strongly believe that patients, public and staff are often ahead of the wider system and sometimes of politicians in knowing the balance of the money, the funding, the good value for taxpayers’ money, clinical outcomes and safety. If they are managed well, those conversations and the sorts of debates we are having tonight can often yield better results than maintaining the status quo or decisions made behind closed doors. I am familiar with such debates, as like many of us I often found myself standing where the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is, advocating for my constituents against changes that I thought were not in their best interest or not clearly communicated. He was right to secure this debate.
David Simmonds
I agree with every word that the Minister has said about how we get good decisions in the interests of local people, but does she share my concern that there has been no public consultation about this decision at all? There has been very limited engagement even with local residents’ associations about the process and, for the staff involved, there has been some—shall we say—degree of ambiguity about what decisions have been made at each stage of the process. Does she agree that it would be wise at this stage, as a very minimum, to pause, to think again and to undertake that public consultation, so that the NHS managers tasked with making the decisions fully understand the impact on the local community?
Karin Smyth
I will comment on that later. I understand that there is a meeting on Friday, to which I will allude.
In preparing for the debate, I met representatives of the trust, and I am grateful to those in the local NHS for their time in giving some further background. The trust is clear that it would be more efficient for urgent care services to be consolidated at the site in Hillingdon, bringing forward the urgent care nurse practitioner service at Mount Vernon into the urgent treatment centre at Hillingdon hospital. The rationale for having urgent treatment centres alongside A&E is well established clinically.
The hon. Gentleman referenced the 10-year plan—I am pleased he is such a fan—and the direction of travel. I am pleased to say that the trust also believes that people are better served by primary care hubs, so that more responsive care can be delivered closer to where people live. Three such hubs are being developed in Hillingdon, one of which will be in Ruislip. I am sure that he welcomed the announcement this week of the roll-out of the first of the 43 hubs, including the one in Hillingdon, which will deliver the neighbourhood health services model.
Danny Beales
Despite some of the heat in the debate, the misquoting of things that have been said and the unfortunate politicisation of this important local issue, about which there is general agreement among Members of all parties and in the community, the consensus that I hear is that people want more accessible services, more locally. There is a need for three hubs—the system wants that—and I am pleased that the Government have announced funding and prioritised Hillingdon. I have also heard that there is a potentially greater role for community pharmacies in providing urgent services and care. Does the Minister agree that more can be done by primary care providers across the board in Hillingdon and elsewhere?
Karin Smyth
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is the direction of travel that we want to see in all of our constituencies across the country.
The long-promised rebuild of Hillingdon hospital will be delivered by this Government as part of wave 1 of the new hospital programme. The money is guaranteed and construction will start between 2027 and 2028. We are already helping the trust to prepare for when we get spades in the ground, and it was a pleasure to visit the trust recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner raised the issue of consultation. I understand that there is a meeting with the trust, the integrated care board and the local authority on Friday, and I am sure that he and other hon. Members will be part of that. It is entirely proper for a Member of Parliament to raise issues about changes in their area—that is part of our democracy and democratic accountability. Now that this Government have put the new hospital programme in order, it is also proper for the House to hold us to account on its progress.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will try to attend the meeting on Friday, but the Minister must appreciate that there is an element of scepticism about the future, in particular about what is happening with this unit. It confirms in my mind that if you stand still long enough, things will come around time and again. In our constituencies in Hillingdon, we have gone from cottage hospitals that provided immediate care for minor injuries, as well as having beds, which were closed, to being promised Darzi units, which we never saw, to looking forward to the hubs themselves. On Friday, I want to be able to convince people that there is a comprehensive plan that will be held to and properly invested in, because people will be very sceptical about the closure of a unit without the confidence that the architecture will be in place to meet the needs of our constituents. The petition has garnered such a large number of signatures because of that concern.
Karin Smyth
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have seen some of those promises made and not delivered over many years. It is important that Members of Parliament are involved and that there is a wide conversation with the ICB and the trust around those changes and the development that they make towards delivering the 10-year plan.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we would bring together NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care precisely because we think that democratic accountability for £200 billion of taxpayers’ money is important. However, that accountability does not mean micromanaging, or intervening in every difficult decision that the ICB makes. We expect local NHS organisations to make changes and to reconfigure their services as best needed by the people they serve. That is in line with the direction outlined in the 10-year plan.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has received several requests to intervene on a number of issues. Having looked at them thoroughly and assured himself that patient safety and access were guarded, he has decided not to intervene in nine reconfigurations. Getting our NHS back on its feet is a team effort, and we have to trust local NHS leaders to deliver. Decisions that affect the people of Hillingdon should be made in Hillingdon—it is not for someone sat behind a desk in Whitehall to make those decisions for them.
Having said that, I want to assure colleagues that that does not mean we will give local leaders a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Yesterday, we published a data tool and league tables that make NHS performance open and accessible, to inspire improvement and deliver a better NHS for all. Those NHS organisations that are doing well will be rewarded with greater freedoms, such as in how to spend their capital, and those that demonstrate the best financial management will get a greater share of capital allocation. We want to move towards a system in which freedom is the norm and central grip is the exception, in order to challenge poor performance.
Improving services for patients should be rewarded; the quid pro quo is that there will be no more rewards for failure. Undertaking the reforms we have set out to make as a Government will require a good deal of trust between central Government and local leaders, and we will build that trust only by showing those local leaders that we trust them to get on with the job and make difficult decisions where necessary.
Karin Smyth
I am going to pursue this point, if I may. Debates about service changes and reconfigurations have gone on since the birth of our NHS. I understand that they are really important for local people, and I understand the level of discussion about this issue and—as the hon. Gentleman has outlined—the wider impact on areas such as Watford. It would be easy for this Government to make ourselves popular by sacking some managers and promising people that services are never going to change, or that they will never close in any part of the country, but we were not elected on a populist platform, and it would not be in patients’ long-term interests not to reform and modernise the system.
We are building an NHS that is fit for the future. That is what the 10-year long-term plan is based on—moving services from hospital into the community, from analogue to digital, and from sickness to prevention. We expect local NHS leaders to make that happen. They must do so with local clinical leadership in the best interests of the populations they serve, and they must do it with the public—we expect open and transparent communications going forward. Local politicians have an important role in that, which Members present in the Chamber have demonstrated ably, and will continue to do so. I would be very happy to maintain contact with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The wider implications of the issues he has raised need to be outlined to him, and I commit to writing back to him about the consideration that is being given to those wider implications. I note his concerns, and I am happy to continue working with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The usual rules apply: no tea, no coffee and, if anyone wishes to remove their jackets, they may do so.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 9 July, brings forward revised codes of practice for the exercise of powers under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. Those powers are vital tools in our national security framework. They allow a counter-terrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port or the border area in Northern Ireland to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity, respectively.
The changes we are debating today follow a public consultation held earlier this year that ran from 17 March to 27 April. The consultation invited views from a wide range of stakeholders, including legal experts, civil liberties organisations, operational partners and members of the public. It focused on proposed updates to the codes of practice to ensure that they remain clear, proportionate and fit for purpose. The Government’s response was published on 23 June. Let me take the opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who engaged with the consultation. The feedback received has helped to shape the final versions of the codes, which now provide greater clarity on how these powers are to be exercised and therefore strengthen safeguards for individuals subject to examination.
I will briefly summarise the key changes that will be made by this instrument. First, a minor element of how examining officers can use the powers in the border area of Northern Ireland will be clarified. The updated guidance makes clear that officers can ask someone why they are in the border area to help them decide whether the person falls within scope of the powers before any formal examination begins.
Secondly, the distinction between counter-terrorism and public order policing will be reinforced. Schedule 7 powers are designed to help police to identify individuals who may be involved in terrorism. They are not meant to be used for managing protests or public order. However, in rare cases, someone’s protest activity might cross a line, for example if it involves serious violence to promote a political cause and could meet the legal definition of terrorism. In such situations, officers may use schedule 7 powers to assess whether the person is involved in terrorism.
Thirdly, consular access guidance will be improved. Individuals detained under these powers have the right to contact their embassy, high commission or consulate. The codes now clarify that questioning may proceed once a request for consular notification has been acted on, even if the consulate is not yet available. That ensures that detained individuals understand their rights and that officers act promptly.
Fourthly, notification safeguards will be enhanced. Officers must inform individuals when an examination begins. That is a key safeguard to ensure that people understand their rights and responsibilities. The updated codes confirm that this notice can be given verbally or in writing, which is especially helpful where language or communication barriers exist. That will make the process clearer and more accessible.
These changes are designed to strengthen public confidence, support operational effectiveness and ensure compliance with human rights obligations. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the Minister on maintaining his role during what some have described as the purge of the Home Office. It is therefore appropriate to thank him for his remarks about the legislation, and pay tribute to his staying power.
Turning to the draft regulations, the periodic updating of codes of practice is a regular occurrence for Governments. With the codes last altered in 2023, it has been deemed necessary to provide further clarification. The regulations we are debating today appear to present proportionate clarification to the existing system, while maintaining the powers necessary to question individuals. As the Government have stated in their documentation, the changes should not alter the original intention of the legislation. Furthermore, steps appear to have been taken to ensure that the powers within the Acts remain usable under the new guidance. The response of the independent Office for Police Conduct illustrates the broad agreement that these powers will continue to be used appropriately by the authorities.
On the broader point, measures that ensure transparency and improve communication—for example, ensuring clear notification—should be welcomed, provided the powers remain effective. The steps on examinations appear proportionate. However, they will also make the process more effective and quicker. I recognise that the clarification relating to public order policing is somewhat limited. However, I note that the amendment to the code explains that the examples of changes provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. Given some of the recent debate around the relationship between protests and terrorism, I ask whether the Minister has had conversations with the police to ensure that those using this power have a sufficient understanding of the changes, so that officers can accurately identify those who may be involved in the instigation of acts of terrorism, and avoid incidents such as those in the past that have prompted these changes.
I am aware that many of the changes are in line with recommendations from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. On that point, I would like to ask the Minister about the changes to the code of practice concerning schedule 7 and Northern Ireland. Given the ongoing challenges with terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s code of practice set out the continuing use of the 2000 Act. However, that appears to contradict the recommendation of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who proposed abolishing the power under schedule 7 on the basis of its lack of use. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could outline how he envisages the power being used in future, and whether it still has a role to play in stopping the heinous acts of terrorism that we unfortunately continue to see in Northern Ireland.
Stopping terrorism is a responsibility of the Government, which Members across the House take with the utmost seriousness. It is therefore right that we support measures that improve the system.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This statutory instrument is a technical change to the existing legislation. It makes changes to the safeguarding around counter-terrorism practices and follows advice by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Providing police and our security services with the appropriate powers to guard against terrorism is essential; however, civil liberties concerns remain. The powers under the counter-terrorism legislation allow people to be stopped, questioned and detained without reasonable suspicion, raising concerns about potential overreach, disproportionate use and risks of profiling.
In addition, although the revised code says that schedule 7 cannot be used for public order policing, it still permits stops where protest activity may meet the definition of terrorism, which could have a chilling effect on legitimate protests. There are clear parallels to the overreaction to Palestine Action and the civil disobedience we are seeing in response. I ask the Minister and the Government to proceed with caution and restraint and with appropriate protections of civil liberties.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Members for Reigate and for Sutton and Cheam for the constructive and reasonable comments that they have made. Let me seek to respond to them as best I can. First, let me take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of these powers. Both schedule 7 and schedule 3 are essential tools in our counter-terrorism and counter-state threat networks. They allow officers to act swiftly and decisively at the border to detect and disrupt those who pose a threat to our national security.
I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for her kind words. It is indeed a privilege and a pleasure to continue to serve, not only in the Home Office but also now in the Cabinet Office. I have been in touch with the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), to seek to talk to him about the nature of the changes that we have made across Government. I think there will be very significant benefits in terms of our ability to co-ordinate national security activity across Government, and I very much hope that will have the support of Members right across the House.
The hon. Lady will know, I hope, that we have always approached matters relating to national security not on a party political basis. These are matters of the most profound importance. My approach as Security Minister will always be to work closely with Members across the House, and certainly with Opposition Members, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments.
The hon. Lady asked an entirely reasonable question, seeking assurances about conversations that we have had with the police. I can give her the reassurance that she seeks. We have worked incredibly carefully with the police. Of course, I am always required to make the point that the police are operationally independent of Government, as she knows, but we work to ensure that any changes, whether to codes of practice or, obviously, to more weighty matters relating to legislation, are worked through very closely with police forces, both nationally and locally. We value the work that our police officers do, we recognise the challenges that they face, and this Government—as I am sure the last Government did as well—will always work as closely as we can with them.
The hon. Lady made an entirely reasonable point about the observations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall. Let me say something about him as an individual, because his name often gets raised in these kinds of forums. He is someone who speaks with great credibility and authority on these matters, and I think has widespread respect throughout the House. Having worked closely with him in opposition and in government, I know that there is a diligence and an authority as well as an independence to the work he does, and the Government always listen very carefully to his recommendations.
The hon. Lady specifically asked about Northern Ireland. I am conscious that with us is a distinguished former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, so I shall choose my words carefully, not least because he may take the opportunity to intervene on me. Specifically regarding the use of powers in the Northern Ireland border area, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government do recognise the sensitivities. The codes now provide greater clarity on the preparatory powers available to officers, and explicitly address concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in his report, which I think dates back to 2022. The changes that we have made ensure that the powers will be used only for national security purposes.
It is also worth making the point that, on public order policing, the Government have accepted the independent reviewer’s recommendation that schedule 7 should not be used to manage protest activity. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we work very closely with the independent reviewer and we look very closely that the recommendations that he has made.
I now turn to the points that were very reasonably made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I understand the concerns that he and his colleagues, including the leader of his party, have raised on matters of proscription. His Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, has had a number of briefs on Privy Council terms on these matters, but should the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady require further information from this Government, we stand ready to provide it.
The hon. Gentleman knows the Government’s position with regard to the proscription of Palestine Action. The Government believe that the decision to proscribe was necessary and proportionate, and we have sought to explain that as well as we are able to, given some of the limitations that are imposed upon us—not least ongoing police investigations and ongoing court proceedings. However, I do recognise the concerns that the hon. Member and others have raised about the process of proscription, and I can say to him, as I have said to the House previously, that these are matters that the previous Home Secretary, the current Home Secretary and I take incredibly seriously. We were satisfied, based on the advice that we received, that the decision that was taken was both proportionate and necessary. I understand that he will not agree with that, but I hope that he understands the reasons why we took the decision.
Let me say a word before seeking to conclude, because I am grateful for the attention of Committee members but I do not intend to detain them further. I again offer thanks to Opposition Members for their contributions, and I finish by emphasising that public safety and national security are priorities of the utmost importance for this Government. In discharging those critical responsibilities we are fiercely committed to transparency, accountability and the rule of law, and it is in that spirit that we brought forward these draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee once more.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.
For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.
When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.
In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.
The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.
As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.
What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.
To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:
“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.
However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.
Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.
The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.
The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.
The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.
The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.
The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.
Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.
It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.
In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.
Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.
The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing the debate, although I have to say that I disagree with everything he said.
The Equality Act represented a pivotal change in our society and in our law, to create a kinder, more inclusive and equal Britain. I am grateful that, by and large, our society continues to uphold those values 15 years after the Act’s initial creation. However, I am here today to speak about a form of discrimination that is only partially covered by the Equality Act: caste discrimination, which certainly should not exist in British society. In 2010, the Labour Government included the legal power in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, as amended, to outlaw caste-based discrimination in the UK. In 2013, Parliament changed that to a legal duty on Ministers to outlaw caste discrimination. Five years later, the Tory Government decided to get rid of that provision, but successive Governments did nothing about it.
Despite calls from authorities such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, there has been no move to implement section 9(5)(a). Indeed, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance found that nearly one in 10 respondents in Britain say that they have experienced verbal abuse on the basis of caste discrimination, and that the same number report that they have missed out on promotion at work because of their caste.
Despite its good provisions, the Equality Act does not explicitly list caste as a protected characteristic, despite the amendments made back in 2013, which would mean that caste discrimination is recognised as a form of race discrimination in the same way as discrimination based on colour, ethnic or national origin, and nationality. It is time for the Government to introduce the recommended secondary legislation to make caste an aspect of race—contrary to what the hon. Member for Romford said, I believe that the Equality Act should be expanded.
We need to make caste discrimination illegal when it comes to employment and public services, including education. The provision is already in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, but it needs to be implemented. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response so that I can reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West that we are doing something for them, as they have suffered from caste-based discrimination.
Since 2013, numerous caste-based discrimination cases have been pursued in employment tribunals, and there have been other cases in which caste discrimination has been alleged—for example, in the NHS and, in one case, in a bakery—but the employers decided to settle out of court. The courts should not have to rely on case law to address caste-based discrimination, because that leaves the issue inconsistent and uncertain.
I ask that the Government take initiative now, further to section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, to provide clarity to our courts. They should implement a clear structure of redress for those impacted and stand alongside other countries, businesses and trade unions in confronting caste-based discrimination, so that we send a clear message to everyone in this country that hatred and discrimination in any form have no place in Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—he and I have been friends for many years. Like me and many others, he holds a love for Britain, so I look forward to working with him.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) clearly illustrated his concerns about the Britain we live in, some of which I share, and he set out what he wishes to achieve. I will make some comments about that in a wee minute.
It is encouraging—indeed, wonderful—that we have legislation to protect minorities across the UK. I believe that we must do that, and the hon. Member for Romford did not say that we should not. We must protect all minorities and discourage direct and indirect discrimination. Of course, there is always more work to be done. We need to perfect all of that and do it right, so it is good to be here to say that.
I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, and the legislation in Northern Ireland is different from the legislation in England and Wales. I want to illustrate that, and then set out where I would hope to be. Northern Ireland does not use the Equality Act legislation that England and Wales use. Back home, the legislation is separate and more complex, as the Minister is well aware from her discussions with the relevant Minister back home. That framework of equality laws developed over a period of time, and the Equality Act, in conversation, does not directly apply to Northern Ireland.
For example, we have separate pieces of legislation relating to sex discrimination, race relations, disability discrimination and employment treatment. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, if he had the time to check what we do in Northern Ireland, would find that he was more at home with our legislation, based on his comments just now.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is the main body overseeing equality laws and protections, and has long advocated for a single piece of legislation. I raise concerns around certain legislation, such as the Equality Act, which does the opposite of what it intends—it intends to do something but, in fact, springs back in the opposite direction.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of the opposite to what is intended happening in practice, does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly with DEI-related matters, although legislative changes seek to protect those who have genuinely been affected and feel they must seek redress, they often attract people who will maliciously use them to further a political agenda and then derive more capital, rather than having a genuine grievance that has to be addressed?
Jim Shannon
I am going to outline the society that I would like to see, and which I think everyone in this Chamber would probably want; it is not a perfect world, because the world is never perfect, but it is the society that I would like to see. My hon. Friend outlined how legislation can sometimes be used to discriminate against a majority, rather than to help a minority, and I will give some examples of that.
The intention of the Equality Act is to harmonise discrimination law to create a fairer and more equal society—that is us back home. To take the example of employment, so many jobs nowadays promote equality and good in careers and hiring new starts. However, on the application form for the civil service, for example, candidates are not even able to put their educational achievements or their employment history, often leaving qualified people behind. That is equality, but is it? I pose that question.
Perhaps I am old-fashioned in my approach; indeed, my wife and children tell me I am old-fashioned, so I probably am. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for being old-fashioned and for being from that generation that perhaps sees things in a slightly different way. Years mature you, and they have definitely matured me. I do not see things the same way as I did 20 or 40 years ago; I see things very differently today in the society we live in. The society I want to see is a pluralistic society where we can all have our differences but still live together side by side, and where we can hold on to our beliefs, strengths and convictions but at the same time respect others. That is the place I want to be.
However, we do not legislation to tell us how to treat people; we need to look individually at how we treat people. It is common sense to me that we do not discriminate against people because of their skin colour or disability. That should never happen. I know that society is making sure that that does not happen, and I welcome that. My issue lies when the majority—I think this is the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—becomes a minority because of the legislation, for example, on equal opportunity employment. That just cannot be right. By the way, I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She and I have been friends for many years. I know she encapsulates the thoughts and concerns we have, and I look forward to her response.
House of Commons Library research highlights the fact that the Women and Equalities Unit leads work in policy, and one of its priorities is tackling violence against women and girls. You will know this, Dr Allin-Khan, and I suspect that everybody will: the violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is horrendous. The number of ladies who have died over the last number of years, percentage-wise, is phenomenally greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The legislation that we have does not really address that, but it needs to.
It is a growing issue. In the past 10 weeks, I think 10 people have been murdered. My goodness! I do not know what is happening in society. Sometimes I despair, to be perfectly honest. This Chamber will be all too familiar with the devastation that Northern Ireland has witnessed as a result of female homicides and the shocking and unbelievable figures on domestic abuse. Those are issues on which we all want and require action.
I put on record my thanks to my DUP colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for her tremendous work in speaking out against the Equality Commission’s intervention on the Supreme Court ruling on what a woman is. She has been and continues to be a vocal advocate for the protection of women’s rights and for ensuring that people do not lose sight of the importance of the issue.
Although it is great, and it is pivotal, that we have guidance and legislation in place to protect people, we must never let other groups potentially fall behind as a result. If that is what happens, it is not achieving its goal. I want, as I think we all do, to live in a world where we accept others for what they are and where we do not fall out because they have a different culture or history, come from a different part of the world or have a different religion. That should not matter. It does not matter to me, personally. We do not have to agree with every choice that an individual makes, but we can agree to differ.
As you and others will know, Dr Allin-Khan, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I believe emphatically, as a Christian. I will speak up for those with a Christian faith, I will speak up for those with other faiths and I will speak up for those with no faith, because I believe that it is my job to do so. That is how I feel in my heart, and I believe that that is the right way. That is the society that I wish to have: a pluralistic society where we can live together.
Many years ago in Northern Ireland—I have had many years in Northern Ireland, probably more than most—I was brought up in a society in which violence, conflict and difference were the way things were. But today they are not, and that is the society I want. That is what we should be seeking through this debate, and I think it is what the hon. Member for Romford wants to achieve. He has highlighted some of the issues that have to be addressed.
We can live in a world where discrimination is not prevalent and where respect is given. That is the utopia that I want to live in, where we can all have friendships and relationships and be on speaking terms. In this Chamber I am no better than anybody else—far from it—but I make it a point to engage with Members of all political views. It is no secret that my politics lie left of centre, but I try to respect people. There are things that we might disagree on—the past six months have probably been the most difficult of my life on the issues that we have had to face in the Chamber, as they it may have been for some others—we will sometimes also agree.
I have had great concerns over the abortion legislation, the assisted dying legislation, welfare reform and family inheritance tax. Those are massive issues for my constituents; I have received thousands of emails about them. But even though we may not win the votes all the time, we have to respect others. I have learned that the House can fairly well be split into a majority and a minority on some of these things.
I look to the Minister to recognise people’s concerns and, potentially, to engage further with her counterparts in Northern Ireland to ensuring that legislation is in place to protect people. It is always good to swap ideas, to exchange and to learn. I hope and pray that we can have a society where we can live better together. That is my ultimate goal in the Chamber. I do not think any MP will ever find me chastising them or shouting across the Chamber; it is just not my form, although I will agree to differ. Perhaps sometimes we need to do just that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended.
I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to
“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations”
between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops.
We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country.
EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty.
The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist.
There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right.
Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes.
My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes.
I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.
Warinder Juss
I accept that we should not have tick-box exercises, but does the hon. Member not agree that legislation should reflect changing social values? Were it not for the fact that we have equality legislation, we might still be suffering the social ills that we suffered back in the ’60s and ’70s, which I remember from growing up in Wolverhampton. We have moved on. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is partly because of the legislation that has been passed to highlight to people what is and is not acceptable?
Rebecca Paul
I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense.
All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this.
Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff.
Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for bringing this debate, although I do not think it will surprise him to know that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with most of what he has said either, I am sorry.
The Equality Act was a landmark in our legal and social history. It consolidated decades of anti-discrimination laws into one clear piece of legislation and gave expression to values that I think most of us share: fairness, dignity and equal opportunity. Since it came into force, the Act has had a real impact. It has given workers stronger tools to challenge discrimination in the workplace. It has supported equal pay claims and required organisations to make accessibility a priority. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) produced an absolutely brilliant video on Instagram yesterday, showing the BBC around this place and, in the process, demonstrating how absolutely inaccessible it is for people like her.
Just as importantly, the Act has helped to normalise the idea that equality is not optional but the baseline that we expect in a modern society. But legislation is only ever as strong as the means of enforcing it. The cuts to both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and to legal aid have made it much harder in practice for people to challenge discrimination. We can pass the most ambitious laws in the world, but if people cannot access justice, rights remain theoretical.
There is also more to do. Although the Act has been vital in tackling workplace discrimination, carers still face significant barriers at work. Too many people—often women—find themselves having to choose between their job and their caring responsibilities. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats called for caring to be recognised as a protected characteristic under the Act, which would place a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for those with caring responsibilities, so that people can balance work and care more effectively. This would be a practical reform and it is long overdue.
We must also acknowledge where the Act has gaps. It does not explicitly address intersectionality, whereby people can face multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination. For example, someone might be disabled and from an ethnic minority background, but the way that those disadvantages interact is not always recognised by the current framework. We need to consider that more carefully.
Also, new challenges are emerging. Much of our daily life now takes place online—at work, in education and in our social lives. Digital exclusion and online discrimination and abuse are real and growing problems. If equality is to mean anything in the 21st century, the protections that we offer must evolve to meet new realities.
The Equality Act should provide a framework that protects all groups. It should not be used to stoke so-called culture wars or to set the rights of one community against those of another, for example by pitting the majority population—whoever they are—against the diverse. Our approach should be evidence-based, respectful and rooted in the belief that upholding the rights of one group strengthens the rights of all.
The Equality Act was a landmark. Our task now is to defend it, to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to live up to its original promise of fairness, dignity and equal opportunity for everyone.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read.
We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world.
I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics.
There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that
“there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”.
We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear.
The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law.
In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare.
We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply.
Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy.
In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way.
This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law.
It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law.
Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome.
Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all?
It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.
Warinder Juss
I take the right hon. Lady’s point about everyone being equal under the law, but what happens if somebody is not made equal under the law? What redress would that person have, were it not for legislation that is currently in place?
Claire Coutinho
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing it. It is important that we discuss these issues in this place and have a debate about what evidence we use in these debates, whether some evidence should be challenged and what opportunities there are to look at other pieces of evidence differently. It is important to continue to have an evidence-based discussion, be respectful when we challenge the premises on which we choose to build our opinions and come back to what we all want to see: equality of opportunity for all.
On the first point on which I gently—or perhaps not so gently—disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I fundamentally believe that equality enables freedom for people to be able to live their lives, to rent and to work, without fear of discrimination or prejudice holding them back.
An important point was raised in this debate: we all want and believe that everybody should be equal under the law. They should be and I hope that they are, but there is a fundamental question about what happens when somebody is discriminated against and how our legal framework can bring redress. We are talking not about whether we believe in equality, but whether we believe that the law should defend people’s equality, and whether that is a value we all subscribe to.
Let me say something about how this has become about identifying whether someone is British. Let me tell the hon. Member for Romford that I am proud to identify as British before anything else, as somebody who was born in Hammersmith. He may also want to challenge those who, on my appointment as a Foreign Office Minister this week—perhaps he did not get the same on his appointment as a shadow Foreign Office Minister—told me that I was another foreigner and should go home. This is my home. This is my country. This is my Parliament. It is important that everything we say in this House defends our democracy and people’s right to live their lives in this country equally.
It is important that we understand our responsibility as legislators to ensure that we have a legal framework that defends people’s rights, particularly against a rising climate of hate and racism. I am sure that all Members across the House, whatever their background, will want to ensure that all their constituents—many of whom will have lived here for decades, bringing up their families, being law-abiding citizens, paying their taxes, contributing to our public services, starting and growing their businesses—are protected under the law. It is extremely important that we do not go backwards on the rights and freedoms that we protect under our legislation.
I welcome this opportunity to champion the positive impact of Labour’s Equality Act 2010. This year is the 15th anniversary, which is an important chance to recognise the other side of the argument: the achievements of that historic, landmark legislation. The Act was passed by giants of our movement, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Baroness Harman for her work on it. With a vision of bringing legislation together to simplify it and avoid different parts competing against one another, Britain’s equalities provisions were consolidated into one Act of Parliament, cementing rights in Britain for generations to come, empowering people who experience discrimination with the knowledge that they have the law and systems on their side and, importantly, giving them redress when it is needed.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.
Seema Malhotra
Let me make a couple of remarks in response to the right hon. Lady’s challenge. It is important that our legislation is used in a way that follows the letter and spirit of the law. I do not want to see debates like this become culture wars. We want to be led by the evidence.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of white working-class males. We have seen in the data that there is an underperformance among that group, which is really important. It is unacceptable that any young person is either not given the opportunity to succeed or not supported. Over the next year, it is our priority to tackle head-on the gap facing white working-class pupils, which the right hon. Lady will know because she is an avid follower of what the Government are doing. It is important that we look at where there is underperformance statistically and whether there are systemic issues in relation to that. This autumn, our schools White Paper will set out an ambitious and practical plan for tackling generational challenges; that is important, and I am sure the right hon. Lady will want to contribute to the Government’s work in that respect.
I will come back to a couple of other points should time permit, including about positive action provisions, which relate to the right hon. Lady’s own Government’s guidance. The positive action provisions in the Act allow limited exceptions to the general position that one group should not be treated better or worse than another. Lawful positive action is always voluntary and must relate to one or more of three conditions: addressing a disadvantage associated with a protected characteristic; providing for a protected characteristic group’s specific needs; or tackling disproportionately low participation by a group. The previous guidance, published in 2023, makes it clear that that is very different from positive discrimination. The right hon. Lady knows that mandatory quotas to recruit or promote people from a particular group irrespective of merit would be unlawful.
I want to make some points about the progress we have seen under the Equality Act and equality legislation, from ending child labour through to votes for women and the Race Relations Act—Labour’s first equality legislation around 60 years ago. Social progress often means that what was once controversial becomes a new normal—a new baseline. Indeed, legislation can change culture, just as culture can change legislation. I am proud that we are in what I hope is a more equal society—one that is more tolerant and believes in respect for each other—compared with the environment that my parents found when they first came to Britain to work, to contribute and to be in business. My mum was a teacher. What they experienced was dramatically changed by the legislation that was brought in, and that gave me opportunities. I remember being spat at when I walked down the street in Feltham and other places, but we are now in an environment where everyone should be able to grow up proud of who they are and able to play their part equally in British society.
Our landmark legislation was a triumph for how the whole nation, including business and unions, came together. I am incredibly proud that we have seen progress, from the implementation of the minimum wage to scrapping section 28 and bringing in same-sex marriage. If we were to scrap all our equality legislation, we might want to answer the questions that would be raised by Members of Parliament who are in same-sex relationships and who have married their partners. I could draw on the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and others. If we rolled back all our equality legislation, what would we be saying to them about how they have been able to come together, marry their loved ones and live their life in Britain, just as we should allow anybody to marry the person they love?
A handful of people in this House would like to take us backwards, to a time before our values were underscored in law and before fairness was put at the heart of our legal framework, but I believe it is important to be proud of the rights we are afforded by the Equality Act. I am a little unsure of the time I have remaining.
Seema Malhotra
I have a few additional remarks. Our Equality Act had a number of objectives: first, to bring together myriad pieces of primary and secondary legislation that had built up, so that we could have one clear, coherent framework that the British people could feel confident in; secondly, to modernise some of the language and concepts used, to make them clearer and more accessible, such as the fact that discrimination linked to breastfeeding is sex discrimination; and thirdly, to strengthen the law by, for example, introducing protection from discrimination by association across various protected characteristics. ACAS guidance gives as an example of the latter a parent being unfairly dismissed from work because of time taken off at short notice to care for their disabled child.
It is important to recognise the progress we have made and where we want to go further. Building on the success of gender pay gap reporting, we committed in our manifesto to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers, and to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people. The hon. Member for Romford might be interested to know that we have been working on that with business, and that many large businesses already follow such practice. We had a consultation and call for evidence, which we are looking at before coming back to the House. Leaders of successful international businesses have told me that more transparency and awareness enables a shift to a more inclusive culture, raising awareness and improving transparency. It also improves staff morale and satisfaction, respect for others and their backgrounds, and understanding—all things that I believe the hon. Member would be keen to see for his constituents and for others across the country.
Let me address some of the other points made in the debate, starting with addressing head-on the point about the definition of Islamophobia and the ongoing working group. Members will have heard it said in Parliament before that, should the Government accept the recommendations of the working group, the definition used will be non-statutory. It will enable the Government and other relevant bodies to have a greater understanding of the unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.
We have seen a massive rise in hate crime against the Muslim and Jewish communities, which accounts for about 71% of hate crime in the past year. As the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) knows, the working group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of belief and expression, which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherence. We fundamentally believe in freedom of speech but we do not believe in hate. It is important to have a legal framework that supports people’s rights to have their own freedom of religion and belief, without fear of what could happen to them.
We see our work on equality and tackling barriers to opportunity as being at the heart of how we support positive and inclusive growth for our economy and communities. The strong equalities framework drafted by the previous Labour Administration, further enhanced by the commitments of this Government, is ultimately about fairness for all, and will see us boost productivity and household income, getting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards for all as we deliver the next phase in our programme of government renewal.
Let me come back on the comment about rainbows on roads and pavements. I remember that during the pandemic rainbows were everywhere, for what they symbolise in so many ways, including a commitment to equality. Perhaps the issue of road repairs is less about rainbows drawn on pavements and roads and much more about the cuts made under the previous Government. My local authority saw a 60% cut in income in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. That had a massive impact on how we were able to renew and maintain infrastructure in our community. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) should know that dealing with roads and potholes is a priority not just for central Government but for my local government in Hounslow.
In conclusion, I want to be clear that the Government are very proud of the Equality Act 2010 and remain committed to improving equality and fairness for all through our Employment Rights Bill and other legislation. I look forward to seeing that come forward in our legislative programme.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda.
I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to.
I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.
Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands.
I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Jim Allister to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make speeches only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Windsor Framework Internal Market Guarantee.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In bringing this matter to the House again, the intention is to retain a focus on the egregious and anti-business situation that continues to prevail in respect of internal trade to Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.
However one dresses this matter up—the Government excel in their attempts in that regard—the fundamental reality is this: courtesy of the post-Brexit arrangements that were first enunciated in the protocol and then, by change of name, in the Windsor framework, we have the absurd situation whereby a part of this United Kingdom is governed by the trade laws of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU. The very essence of being part of the United Kingdom should surely be the unfettered nature of trade: the fact that people can trade as freely from Cardiff to Carlisle or from Gloucester to Glasgow as they should be able to trade from Birmingham to Belfast. That is the essence of being in a United Kingdom, where unfettered trade lies at the heart of that economic union. Of course, that is already specified in article 6 of our Act of Union.
The current arrangements are based on the fact that when Brexit occurred, Northern Ireland, instead of getting Brexit, was left behind under the EU’s customs code. That means that Northern Ireland is treated for these purposes as EU territory, and that GB is treated in that context as a third, or foreign, country. Hence, under the purview of the EU customs code, there is a need for the Irish sea border—an Irish sea border that is not established directly under United Kingdom law but that is provided for by various EU provisions.
We have the most astounding position that the regulation of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland comes under EU legislation. EU regulations 2023/1128 and 2023/1231 specify the “customs formalities” for trade from GB to Northern Ireland and the
“rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of…goods”.
Even in the title of that EU legislation we see how wrong and absurd it is that trade within this United Kingdom, which is supposed to be a free internal market, is governed by laws that we do not make anywhere in this United Kingdom—laws that we cannot change anywhere within this United Kingdom, but that are made by 27 other countries. That is not just an economic outrage but a democratic outrage.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it astounding not only that the laws on the border were made by the European Union, but that when it comes to those laws being applied, EU officials are actually directing officials from Northern Ireland as to which lorry should be searched, which goods should be looked for and which actions should be taken? We have foreign laws and foreign officials dictating the terms of trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
It invariably amounts to Northern Ireland being treated as an EU colony, and it has all those characteristics. Into this comes some of these magical phrases, such as the internal market guarantee—that sounds very reassuring. Listening to that terminology, we would think that the protection of our internal trade is guaranteed. It is then further ensconced by the deceptive language of the UK internal market system. It is nothing of the sort; it is not a UK internal market system.
The genesis of this is very interesting. We had the protocol, and we then had the Windsor framework. That change of name introduced this concept of a UK internal market system, which is really the green lane, as it was previously called. We then had the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, which was supposed to bring in groundbreaking innovations, but its only innovation was giving cover to the DUP to get back into government with Sinn Féin, and to help implement the protocol. Within that Command Paper, we then had the internal market guarantee, but let us look at this UK internal market system.
It is not a system that allows free and unfettered trade from GB to Northern Ireland; it is a system that brings the operation of the international customs border down one peg. We have the red lane—a full-blown international customs border enforced by the EU—that partitions the United Kingdom with a border down the Irish sea. With this deceptive language, we then have the so-called UK internal market system, or the green lane. However, it still requires customs declarations, an export number and a percentage of checks, so it is anything but a free internal market. It is the encapsulation of the enforcement of EU requirements on our internal trade within the United Kingdom—under their control, not UK control. The depths of attempts to find deceptive language only compounds the insult involved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing this debate. Of course, the issue goes further than that; it has escalated for businesses and delivery services in my constituency of Strangford and further afield in Northern Ireland because of so-called changes in the internal market, as there always is a cost factor now. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Minister and the Government must do what they promised years ago and sort out the mess? Further, does he agree that they must initiate their withdrawal from the agreement that has been put forward?
Jim Allister
Of course, it was the last Government who, in their folly, brought this upon us. However, this Government, with maybe greater enthusiasm, are implementing the partitioning and dividing of the United Kingdom. The economic consequence of that is the diversion of trade; most of our raw materials come from GB, and we had a very integrated UK economy in which Northern Ireland was heavily dependent on its trade to and from GB. However, we are saying to a business supplier in GB, “If you want to send goods to Northern Ireland, or even if you want to send a parcel to Northern Ireland, you must have an export number and fill in a customs declaration, and we will carry out a percentage of checks on the goods.” That is on the supposed internal market system, never mind the red lane.
The Government are deliberately and consciously closing their eyes to this, but its natural consequence is diversion of trade, which has been self-evident in recent years. The Government do not want to observe it or take account of it, because they should be under a duty to act under article 16 of the protocol. But this is a Government that have so kowtowed to the EU that they are never going to act on the issues that they should do.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate and for continuing to raise what is an important issue. He mentioned the manufacturers, but would he also agree about the impact on the Road Haulage Association? We have seen not only the implementation of additional bureaucracy and costs but the recent introduction of the import control system 2—ICS2—which the Government said would go live in September. They then told hauliers that it would be live in December of this year, but they actually put the system live in August without engagement or interaction with the Road Haulage Association and hauliers in Northern Ireland, increasing bureaucracy and costs.
Jim Allister
Yes, and when it comes to spending money on partitioning the United Kingdom, this Government have no qualms. We have seen expenditure of £190 million to build border posts. Where are there border posts other than at an international border? That is the reality of the United Kingdom today; it is partitioned by an international customs border. When someone goes from GB to Northern Ireland, they are effectively leaving one customs territory, governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and entering a customs territory governed by the laws of the EU—laws, I say again, that we do not make and cannot change. It is such a fundamental assault on not just our constitutional position but our businesses and trade, that it is causing increasing difficulties.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Northern Ireland remains subject to over 300 areas of EU law, meaning that our businesses face checks, paperwork and ongoing diversions that no other firms or businesses in England, Scotland or Wales have to contend with. Even recently, there have been numerous lorries turned back at the ports for transporting food, which we were told was sorted out. Is this not a clear breach of the principles of unfettered access, and a fundamental weakening of our place within the Union?
Jim Allister
Of course it is, but that is the intent of the protocol. No one should be under any illusion: the Windsor framework is designed to set the scene to usher Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom by the mechanism of creating an all-Ireland economy. That mechanism works in this way: it makes it increasingly difficult to trade from GB, therefore forcing business to look elsewhere for supplies; it then maximises the north-south dimension and builds an all-Ireland economy—that is the purpose of the protocol—as a stepping stone of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the very clear, iniquitous political purpose of the protocol. It is that that this Government and the last were facilitating with some enthusiasm.
Now, the Government told us, “Oh, we are going to take all sorts of steps to make sure that trade is not diverted. We even passed the Internal Market Act—that must be good. Section 46—doesn’t that guarantee you all sorts of wonderful things?” The Government then said, “We are going to set aside a lot of money. We are going to introduce the mutual assistance scheme.” Let me talk about the mutual assistance scheme: it was brought in to assist businesses that were having difficulties with the costs imposed at the border. It was extended, but finally ran out on 30 June this year. This Government did not extend it. What does that mean? I will tell you, Dr Allin-Khan.
I have a potato wholesale business in my constituency that relies on bringing potatoes from GB to Northern Ireland. Since 30 June, the cost of a veterinary inspection for those potatoes has been £127.60, and the cost of the phytosanitary certificate has been £25.52. That was previously covered by the movement assistance scheme, but now it is put upon the supplier in GB. And what does he do? Surprise, surprise, he puts it upon the recipient in Northern Ireland. If that is not guaranteed to dissuade trade and force trade diversion, I cannot imagine what is.
Here is the question for the Government: in the plethora of assurances that they gave when they said that they were not trying to drive Northern Ireland trade and business out of the United Kingdom, why did they not renew the movement assistance scheme? I trust that the Minister, who knows more about these things than anyone else in this Government, will explain why they did not renew it.
Will the same thing happen with the Trader Support Service? Will it run out, too? Will our businesses increasingly be left marooned and alone to bear unconscionable financial burdens? The Government need to answer those questions, but the fundamental thing they need to address is this: when will they recover their dignity and pride—they are supposedly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—by controlling the borders of the United Kingdom and expelling the internal, partitionist international trade border that has been imposed on Northern Ireland? Unless and until they do that, this issue is not and cannot be settled. They cannot go on brushing it under the carpet and increasing the pressure by abandoning issues such as the movement assistance scheme.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government, in their own words in the framework document, have accepted that without smooth trading there will be economic and constitutional impacts? They not only owe it to the economy of Northern Ireland to sort out these issues; if they do not, they are accepting that they are happy enough to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland affected.
Jim Allister
Sadly, the only conclusion one can make is that they are happy enough about that.
What is this internal market guarantee guaranteeing? That 80% of goods from Northern Ireland, instead of passing through the full-blown international customs border, will pass through the international customs border that we misname the “internal market system”, but they will still require a customs number, customs declarations and checks. The guarantee is 80%. You cannot be 80% pregnant, and you cannot be 80% part of the United Kingdom. We need to be completely part of the United Kingdom, and that requires the restoration of where this United Kingdom started, under article 6 of the Acts of Union: free and unfettered trade, equal for all parts of this kingdom.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively.
I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland.
Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone.
I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along.
The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully.
The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work.
I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it.
Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.
A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:
“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”
That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases.
The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.
The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.
An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.
More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.
There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has
“the best of both worlds.”
Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it
“a huge potential customer basis”
and enabling it to
“fulfil orders quicker than competitors.”
Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.
Jim Allister
The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.
I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call Melanie Ward to move the motion, it is self-evident that this debate is well subscribed. At the moment, just based on the numbers who have put in to speak—there are some hon. Members who have turned up who have not put in to speak, which does not mean they cannot be called—it looks as though the speech limit will be around one minute 30 seconds. If there are more interventions, that may have to be reduced.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We meet today almost two years in to the devastating war on Gaza. Over 63,000 Palestinians have been directly killed—44% of them women and children.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The United Nations estimates that more than 28,000 women and girls have been killed in Gaza over the last two years. We know from recent events that international pressure is not working. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must go further to ensure that aid is allowed to flow in freely and lasting peace is reached?
Melanie Ward
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will have much more to say about that.
Thousands more are likely dead under the rubble as well. There is man-made famine. Schools, hospitals, mosques, homes—the very fabric of life is being destroyed by the Israeli Government. Almost 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank in the last two years also. I am sure that all of us here will agree that the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas were an outrage, and the Israeli hostages must be released. Attacking civilians is never justified. I know there is so much to say about the situation in Gaza in particular, which global experts increasingly assess as a genocide, and that will especially be the case given the Israeli President’s visit, and Israel’s unacceptable attack on Qatar yesterday, clearly designed to scupper any chance of a ceasefire.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel’s attack on our friend Qatar—indeed, against the very negotiators that were supposed to be discussing this ceasefire—shows that it has no interest in securing peace, and that there must be consequences for that action?
Melanie Ward
I agree on both points. We have to remember that Qatar was asked by the international community to undertake the hugely important role that it plays in trying to bring about peace and a ceasefire through negotiations. The focus of today’s debate, however, is humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the ways that aid workers are increasingly being prevented from doing their job, which is to serve civilians in need.
Aid workers serve humanity. When they are prevented from doing their jobs, it is humanity that suffers. In the aftermath of the atrocities of world war two, the main bodies of international humanitarian law were drawn up—what are often called the “laws of war”. Part of their purpose is to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach those in need, and that aid workers can do their jobs safely, in line with humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I apologise for cutting my hon. Friend short; I am due to be meeting the director of the World Food Programme in Palestine shortly. Yesterday I met the ambassador for Jordan; he and his delegates told us that aid is sitting on the border in Jordan, but Israel is preventing aid that could help thousands of people from getting in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to do all they can to put pressure on our United States counterparts to force Israel into allowing this aid in?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend knows exactly what she is talking about. I agree completely, and I ask her to convey our solidarity to the Palestine director of the World Food Programme when they meet shortly.
To state the obvious: to alleviate the suffering of a population in humanitarian need, aid workers need to be able to reach them. Too often across the world today we see aid workers being restricted from reaching people in need, something that is in violation of the laws of war. Gaza is ground zero for that.
We are all familiar with the barriers that Israel has put in place to stop aid entering Gaza. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has said that creative solutions, such as floating piers, are needed to get aid into Gaza. We also know that aid drops are deeply flawed. However, the solution to getting aid into Gaza is simple—Israel must open the gates and let it in.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On that point, it is quite clear, as we have seen, that the number of deaths we have seen at the food distribution centres run by Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—something like 3% of the total number of deaths—is an outrage. Does my hon. Friend agree that restoring an orderly supply of humanitarian aid is critical?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I will come on to say more about that issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is the largest maritime mission to Gaza and includes civilians from across the globe, two of whom are constituents of mine. This aid mission is entirely legal, non-violent and presents no threat to the Israeli Government or Israeli citizens. However, we have already seen attacks on it, and we know from past experience that it may face further attacks. Does she agree that it should be the primary duty of this Government to protect British citizens, including those participating in the flotilla? If so, will she join me in calling on the Minister to outline exactly what the Government will do to secure the safety of our citizens?
Melanie Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister has heard what she said, and I have a lot more to say about how we can protect civilians and aid workers, too.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. Just before this debate, I met Antoine Renard, who made a point to me about the disinformation that is being spread about rotten food, and emphasised the importance of having trusted NGOs, a point my hon. Friend made earlier in her speech. Does she agree that we must compel the President of the United States to recognise those points when he comes to the UK on a state visit next week?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend makes an important intervention. Indeed, this topic is riddled with misinformation and errant nonsense, put out there for political reasons; I am sure that we will hear some more of it later on.
The issue of access for aid workers has received much less attention than that of aid not being allowed into Gaza in the first place, but, to state the obvious, it is no use getting malnutrition treatment into a warzone without the skilled staff—whether local or international aid workers —who know how to use it. Being able to reach starving children is obviously essential to saving their lives.
There are many ways of denying humanitarian access: visa and permit restrictions that deny entry; failing to grant movement permission, which means not agreeing to give safe passage to humanitarian workers; putting in place requirements to hand over sensitive information about local staff and clients; threatening to close down banking; and making it simply too dangerous to work in an area. The Israeli Government are using every one of these tactics to shut down legitimate humanitarian operations in Gaza today. It is not Hamas that pay the price for that; it is starving children.
The Israeli Government have a new front in their war. It is against NGOs, including humanitarian aid charities, some of them British. As of yesterday, the Israeli Government have introduced new restrictions on NGO registration, which require international NGOs to share sensitive personal information about Palestinian employees or face termination of their humanitarian operations across the OPT. NGOs such as Medical Aid for Palestinians have made clear that such data-sharing would put lives at risk in such a dangerous context for aid workers, especially given the fact that 98% of aid workers killed have been Palestinian nationals.
One month ago, on 6 August, UN agencies and others issued a warning that, without immediate action, most international NGOs faced deregistration, which would force them to withdraw all international staff and prevent them from providing critical lifesaving aid to Palestinians. The deadline of 9 September passed yesterday; the evidence so far suggests that the staff of aid agencies that speak out about what they witness are being particularly targeted. As a former aid worker who has worked in a range of war zones, including Gaza, I know that advocacy about what we see is vital in trying to bring change.
The move to block international NGOs from operating in Gaza has been compounded since the chilling arrival of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in May. Let us call it what it is: a bunch of mercenaries, and a disgrace. Since the GHF was set up, more than 2,000 people have been killed in Gaza while seeking aid, in what has been described by Médecins Sans Frontières as “orchestrated killing”. A recent MSF report says that the majority of people attending their clinics after being shot at GHF hubs are
“covered in sand and dust from time spent lying on the ground while taking cover from bullets.”
It quotes one man as saying of the site:
“You find what seems like two million people gathered around five pallets of food. They tell you to enter, you go in, you grab what you can—maybe a can of fava beans, a can of hummus. Then a minute later, gunfire comes from every direction. Shells, gunfire—you can’t even hold onto your can of hummus. You don’t know where the gunfire is coming from.”
Three months after the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began its operations to supposedly provide humanitarian relief in Gaza, the integrated food security phase classification confirmed that Gaza was in famine for the first time. That is the grim reality of a situation where Israel attacks independent aid workers while its own so-called aid workers attack civilians. At least 531 aid workers and 1,590 health workers, overwhelmingly Palestinian nationals, have been killed in Gaza in the past two years.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Last night I co-hosted an event in Parliament for Wael al-Dahdouh, the former bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Gaza, whose family members have been killed, and five of whose colleagues were killed during a double strike on a hospital only a few weeks ago that also killed four healthcare workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should stand up for journalists and healthcare workers in Gaza and make sure that their deaths are properly investigated?
Melanie Ward
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who does hugely important work on this topic. Journalists, aid workers and others being able to see and report on what is taking place is massively important, and there are undoubtedly horrific attempts to stop that. Bombing a hospital to kill a journalist is absolutely disgraceful.
There were 940 incidents of attacks on healthcare in Gaza in 2024, more than the total number of health attacks in Ukraine and Sudan put together for that same year. The corresponding figure for the west bank and East Jerusalem is 418 in one year.
I want to give an example of what we mean when we talk about aid workers being attacked. On 18 January 2024, an Israeli F-16 fired a 1,000-lb smart bomb that struck a Medical Aid for Palestinians and International Rescue Committee compound housing aid workers in Gaza’s supposed safe zone of al-Mawasi. It almost killed my then colleagues, including four British doctors. We had to evacuate the doctors, disrupting a lifesaving emergency medical programme, and Palestinian colleagues were traumatised and terrified.
The Israeli military knew who that compound belonged to. I know that because it was personally confirmed to me, as the then chief executive officer of Medical Aid for Palestinians, on 22 December 2023 by the British Embassy in Israel that the IDF knew of our location and had marked it as a humanitarian site. That should have protected us. The IDF knew, too, that our staff were there, having come back to rest from the hospital the previous evening, their movement having been logged properly through the supposed deconfliction system.
After bombing us, the Israeli regime provided six different explanations to the then US and UK Governments and to me for why they had bombed our compound. Those explanations, sometimes provided by and to the very highest levels of Government, ranged from the Israeli military being unaware of what had happened to denying involvement; accepting responsibility for the strike, which had been attempting to hit a target adjacent to our compound, despite the fact that the compound was not close to any other building, which was one of the reasons we selected it; accepting responsibility for the strike and asserting that it was a mistake caused by a defective tail fin on the missile that was fired; and accepting responsibility and advising that what hit the MAP-IRC compound was a piece of aircraft fuselage that had been discharged by the pilot of the Israeli fighter jet. The variety of responses was both farcical and frightening. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone cannot just get in an Israeli fighter jet, take it for a fly and fire at whatever they like. The targets, as we are often told, are very carefully selected.
I highlight, too, the targeted drone attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy—also in a supposedly deconflicted zone—that killed seven aid workers on 1 April last year, the week before I was last in Gaza. That concluded with a hurried internal Israeli investigation where no one was held accountable for murdering humanitarians. On 3 August, just last month, the Israeli military attacked the headquarters of the Palestine Red Crescent Society in Gaza, killing one of its staff in a building that also was known to the Israelis and clearly marked. Their military told the BBC that they were “reviewing the claim” of the PRCS.
Evidence shows that United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff have been killed, faced abuse and been detained on a regular basis, and subjected to sleep deprivation, beatings and attacks by dogs. Time and again, the Israeli military attack aid workers then refuse to properly investigate what happened. The only conclusion we can reach is that they are doing this deliberately—these are war crimes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the catalogue of atrocities being committed. In July, the Prime Minister announced that
“the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza”.
Those steps have not been taken, and the situation has got worse; we saw what happened yesterday in Qatar. Does she agree that the UK must now recognise a Palestinian state as part of a broader push for peace and urgent humanitarian relief?
Melanie Ward
I absolutely agree that it is time to take the historic step of recognising a state of Palestine.
I have some questions for the Minister, but first I want to put one more thing on the record; it points to one of the reasons why the Israeli Government do not want people to see what is taking place. An aid worker who I know very well—a very experienced aid worker in Gaza—told me about a situation that he witnessed in the north of Gaza, in Gaza City, after an Israeli siege of the main hospital there. After the siege, he was one of the first people to enter the compound of the hospital. He told me that what they saw were the remains of many half-buried bodies. In all but one case, it was impossible even to identify the sex of the dead body. The only person they could identify was an old man who had his wrists bound.
This aid worker told me, too, that there was a huge pile of clothes in the compound of the hospital and that when the aid workers entered the compound, many of the people who lived around about the hospital came in and began sifting through the pile of clothes. Because they could not identify the bodies of any of the dead people, the relatives were looking through the pile of clothes to see whether they could identify any of the clothes that had belonged to their loved ones, which would mean their loved ones might be among the dead. This is why we need proper justice, investigations and accountability for what is happening in Gaza.
Does the Minister agree that it is time for an independent investigation into these incidents and others like them? Will the Government support full accountability for these and other war crimes against aid workers, and will he personally take up the case of the MAP-IRC compound bombing with the Israeli Government? Can he share what the Government have done to stop the new restrictions on aid agencies? Will the Government make it clear to Israel that if it proceeds and aid agencies are denied access, it will pay a price for doing this?
Finally, I know that the Minister will not commit to this today, but will he agree to go away and examine expanding the UK sanctions regime to cover all those involved in violations of IHL? The Government have rightly sanctioned violent settlers in the west bank, but they should also target those instructing the blockade of aid and involved in the targeting of aid workers in Gaza, for example. Will the Minister agree to look into that and write to me about it?
What happens in Gaza does not stay in Gaza. In June, a British aid worker was killed in a drone strike in Ukraine. In Sudan, refugee camps are being continuously targeted, with children and aid workers being killed. Only 10 days ago, the Houthis in Yemen arrested 19 UN staff, adding to dozens of UN staff already arbitrarily detained since 2024. Last year was the worst year on record for attacks on healthcare, and this trend is worsening. Such attacks violate international law, and the more they are allowed to continue with impunity, the more they incentivise malign actors in other conflicts to do the same. Accountability is essential.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Will Members remain bobbed for a second so that we can calculate the time for speeches? I remind Members to bob after every speech. The speech time will be one minute and 30 seconds.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
Nine children lie in bloodstained, torn clothes. They were not fighters, militants, extremists or terrorists; they were simply queuing for water in what Israel itself has declared a safe zone, and yet the so-called most moral army in the world unleashed death upon them. Their small bodies now bear witness to a horror that no child should ever know. That is not an isolated strategy, as the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) so powerfully said. We have seen the death of innocent people in churches, mosques, hospitals and schools—every sector of Palestinian society has been destroyed.
For those who survive the bombs, starvation is tightening its grip. Families are already watching loved ones waste away: 361 people have already died of hunger, including 83 since famine was officially declared. The world’s leading genocide scholars, Israeli human rights organisations and international experts are clear: what is happening in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. Yet here in Britain, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his final flurry as Foreign Secretary, wrote that the Government have not determined that Israel acts with intent, and therefore there is not a genocide. How can anybody look away relentlessly when all this tragedy is happening?
I have very little time, so I ask the Minister: will he call on diplomatic—
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The IPC has declared only four famines since it was established in 2004. In August, it declared one in Gaza City. It said:
“this Famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed”.
The non-governmental organisations I have spoken to have been unable to get any aid into Gaza since March. Save the Children has 45 trucks of aid, including medicine, shelter items and hygiene kits, waiting in warehouses, and Oxfam has been unable to bring in any menstrual supplies.
Humanitarian access also means ensuring the safety of humanitarian workers. The year 2024 was the deadliest on record to be an aid worker, and Gaza is the deadliest place on Earth to be an aid worker. On 1 April 2024, one of my constituents, James Henderson, was killed alongside other aid workers from World Central Kitchen while taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. It was not an isolated incident. Between 7 October 2023 and August 2025, 508 humanitarian personnel have been killed.
I welcome the statement by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), on the IPC ruling made on 22 August. I also welcome the diplomatic and economic measures that the Government have already taken with allies. However, the situation is becoming ever more desperate. Many constituents constantly ask me what more we can do and what more action we can take. Some, such as Kerenza, who I saw yesterday, are taking time off work to support the flotilla, and some are protesting.
With the other three Labour MPs for Cornwall, I have asked for clear diplomatic and economic action with our allies, such as extending further sanctions—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on the passion for humanitarian issues that she has shown in this Chamber and elsewhere in the House in the time that I have known her.
Samaritan’s Purse is an NGO that operates out of my constituency of Strangford and responds in areas of humanitarian need. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, Samaritan’s Purse is often the first to answer. It specialises in meeting critical needs in the world’s most troubled regions. It works through ministry partners already on the scene of a crisis.
Members are thankful for every single charity that is doing its utmost to help, from Samaritan’s Purse collections in Northern Ireland in my constituency of Strangford, under its tremendously hard-working and gifted volunteer Gillian Gilliland, my constituent, through to our American counterparts. Aid has been sent, and it is the place of this House to do all we can to ensure that it goes to the places that most need it. There is a disaster assistance response team, and I have written to the Minister’s Department to ensure that help is given in particular to the NGO Samaritan’s Purse, so that it can do its work.
The House must do its best so that children on both sides of the Gaza strip can have hope and a future. That is the best that we can do in this House today.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
It was deemed irrefutable by the UN-backed agencies that this is a man-made famine. That man-made famine becomes a genocide if it can be proven that it was used as a tool to destroy a specific group of people—and I believe that there is only one group of people there. Journalists and international monitors, who we rely on for all our information—for reality on the ground—have been banned from entering Gaza, leaving brave Palestinians to tell us their story.
Even though there is a growing consensus among genocide scholars that Israel’s actions in Gaza do meet the legal definition of a genocide, without access to information on what is happening, and until mainstream journalists are allowed in, we are left in the dark over the true extent of the horrors on the ground. How will we gather the evidence needed to assess that Israel is committing genocide? How much more slaughter will the Palestinians have to suffer in the meantime?
On all fronts, entry into the occupied Palestinian territories for journalists, monitors and aid workers has been shut. Food and essentials for Palestinians have been banned, blocked, barricaded and destroyed.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
As a parent, I cannot imagine the agony of seeing your children starve and not being able to do anything about it, but that is the daily experience of families in Palestine. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel’s man-made catastrophe must be put to an end and that aid must be allowed into Gaza immediately?
Jas Athwal
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this has to come to an end straight away. While I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine and to condemn the Israeli Government’s dehumanisation of Palestinians, we must face up to the unfortunate truth that this is simply not enough, as it has not stopped the violence. Instead, every day the reports grow bleaker, the suffering is deeper and the need for intervention grows more urgent.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have all witnessed what can only be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing, mass starvation, and the intentional murder of aid workers and people who want doctors and so forth. This Government’s approach, in saying that there is not a genocide, further emboldens Israel in what it is doing. Does the hon. Member agree that military intervention is an option that should not be off the table?
Jas Athwal
What I agree with is that we must never give up the diplomatic option, because that is the way that we will get across. We must avoid more bloodshed at any cost, and we must work harder for the diplomatic solution.
Mr Stringer, I will not abuse my position; having had two interventions, I will relinquish the floor for my colleagues to contribute.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) not only for all her work in the region, but for bringing this debate forward.
We have met those who have suffered and lost, and who have risked everything to deliver aid and service. We have seen pictures of suffering that no mind can forget and heard the heart-rending agony of trauma and devastation: from the children whose bodies are unrecognisable from blasts, bullets and bombs, with no analgesia to soothe them, to children so emaciated that they can no longer feed—little bundles of linen, as parents are ripped apart with grief. And yet it continues. Our constituents want our Government to do more. All they feel that they can do is march, donate and pray. We too want our Government to do more, but we have to believe that even today, our agency will resonate with them and with the Knesset.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions on the health aid that we can provide. What are the plans for this afternoon’s discussions? What is going to happen after today to ensure that aid arrives at its destination? How will we ensure that healthcare gets through, and how will we provide the support and training of medical staff to ensure that we can rebuild the health service for the future?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
UNRWA has been crippled, staff killed, warehouses targeted and its mandate undermined. Since last July, less than 40% of required food supplies have entered Gaza. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, anti-Islamic US biker gang included, operates only a handful of distribution points where UNRWA once ran 800. Its centres are largely in the south, forcing desperate civilians towards the Egyptian border, in line with Israeli military objectives. There have been repeated shootings at those sites. This is not humanitarian work; this is exploitation of suffering.
The assault on Gaza City is escalating, 1 million residents have been told to evacuate, and we risk a further escalation of civilian death—a new phase in the genocide, so I ask the Government: what action is being taken to enforce an immediate ceasefire? Will the UK match the EU’s move to suspend bilateral support to Israel? And will we ask our F-35 partner nations to consider suspending supplies?
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The sheer volume of correspondence that I have received from my constituents about the restriction of aid going into the Occupied Palestinian Territories is vast—unprecedented. Israel has weaponised the flow of aid into Gaza. The loss of life and the destruction of homes and schools is horrifying. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take more steps to ensure that aid can reach the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comment. Much more needs to be done. I also support the call for UN peacekeepers. I ask the Government directly: has there been any discussion with the UN Secretary-General on the use of peacekeepers to secure operations? And will demands be made of President Herzog, as he is here today—the man who signed the bombs that would rain on Gazan children and who made it abundantly clear that he was totally aligned with the principles of collective punishment? We have to shake our heads that such a man should be invited into our country.
Civilians in Gaza cannot wait. Starvation is advancing. International law is being shredded. Britain must act decisively, urgently and on the side of humanity.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate.
I begin with a harrowing quote from a father in Gaza speaking to aid workers:
“Bread has become a dream. On the fourth attempt, I finally got flour—but only by stepping over bodies of people who died trying to reach the same bag I held in my hands.”
Those words are not simply tragic; they are a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict—a cost borne disproportionately by those who have no choice and no voice in the halls of power.
More sobering is the fact that this situation is not an unavoidable tragedy. It is a deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war. It is a campaign of mass killing. It is a war crime. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned us plainly:
“We are failing the people of Gaza. Inaction is not an option.”
Yet we sit in our homes in our country, with a Government choosing to look away. I ask our Government and the Minister: has Israel really desisted? Has it responded to any of the steps that the Government have taken? It has actually increased the atrocities and the number of people being killed on a day-to-day basis, using all means available.
I end by asking the Government: will we stop looking away? Will the Government finally demand and enforce a permanent ceasefire, ensure the protection of civilians and ensure unhindered access to aid? Will we—
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The famine that we see unfolding in Gaza is not merely a humanitarian crisis, but an absolute moral catastrophe: children starving before our eyes and families digging through rubble not for shelter but for food.
I welcome the fact that the Government have already taken decisive action to respond to this by restoring funding to UNRWA, through a programme to airlift critically injured children, and by supporting UK-Med and treating more than 600,000 Gazans. We have helped to shape the international community’s work to plan for what post-conflict peace will look like. We have provided more than £250 million in development assistance and have been working with our allies, including Egypt and Jordan.
Those are all welcome steps, but all of us here today want to hear from the Minister about what more we will do. We must get more humanitarian aid into Gaza, without obstruction, without delay and on a scale that meets this vast and desperate need. Food, water, medicine and shelter are not political bargaining chips; they are basic human rights.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for bringing this important debate to the Minister.
The situation in Palestine has been the single most pressing issue raised with me by my constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire. What possible justification can there be for the deliberate creation of famine? Starvation is not only a humanitarian catastrophe; it is recognised under international law as an illegal weapon of war. Despite repeated assurances, arms sales to Israel continue, sanctions against those responsible for violence have not been imposed, the right of the Palestinian people to recognition has been treated as a bargaining chip, and hundreds of peaceful protesters here in the UK have been arrested.
The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to press for full and unimpeded humanitarian access to the Palestinian territories. Without appropriate humanitarian access, and with only limited aid convoys and airdrops—spotlighted by propaganda—the Palestinian people will face catastrophe beyond the horror they already live every day. Without a serious change of course, this Government risk both appearing weak on the international stage and undermining trust at home—targeting elderly protesters here while refusing to take meaningful action abroad.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her tireless activism on this issue.
Twenty months ago, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches Palestinians in Gaza, to protect what the Court found to be Palestinians’ “plausible” right to be protected from acts of genocide. Today, humanitarian reality speaks for itself, as other hon. Members have set out: 470,000 Palestinians face catastrophic food insecurity, and nearly 900 people have been killed while queuing for aid since May—shot by Israeli forces as they waited for food and water.
Last month, alongside 27 other countries, the UK rightly condemned Israel’s aid distribution system as “dangerous” and “inhumane”—my hon. Friend rightly described it as a disgrace. It is clear that humanitarian access has worsened and that the Court’s orders are still being systematically ignored. We must see full compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures, all border crossings reopened, all restrictions lifted and humanitarian operations restored to pre-conflict levels.
Under the genocide convention, the UK has obligations to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law, regardless of whether the UK has reached its own conclusions about genocide itself. The ICJ has made enough rulings. The time for action is now.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I want to begin by saying that what is happening in Gaza and the ongoing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not just some random natural disaster. The UN-backed integrated food security phase classification has declared a man-made famine. Civilians are not starving; they are being starved. Israel stopped aid entering Gaza on 2 March and, since 9 March, all electricity has been cut off in Gaza.
It is not enough to repeat the line that Israel must uphold international rights and standards in theory, when it is so clear that it is not doing so, has not been doing so and has effectively been given the go-ahead to continue not doing so. Quite frankly, the UK’s continued support and facilitation of that is shocking to my constituents and the majority of people in the UK.
In the short time I have, I want to raise a point on UNRWA. The Knesset’s decision to ban Israeli officials from engaging with UNRWA, and UNRWA from working in East Jerusalem was wrong, according to what the Government said in January. They also said that if UNRWA found itself unable to operate, they would release a statement, which we have not had. Will the Minister ensure that that follows soon?
I am speculating that the Minister will assert something along the lines that aid must get to where it is needed in theory. To be clear, aid is being blocked and hindered by Israel, the UK’s close and staunch ally. It is obvious that the best way to stop and to address that is not to provide political cover.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate and I agree with everything she said.
This is a time when children are starting school for the first time—a moment of optimism, pride and love for their parents. Imagine being a Palestinian mum and dad, unable to feed their children, unable to take them to school or to pray at a church or mosque, unable to find a doctor when they are ill. This is a moral outrage of the first order. At present, under international law, people are able to act with utter impunity. There is a question of whether the scope of international law is wide enough to cover the atrocities being committed in this and other conflicts.
There is a serious question when people can act with impunity without fear of prosecution and conviction for serious crimes. I ask the Minister to set out how the United Kingdom Government are working with international allies to strengthen international law, so that people cannot act with such impunity, to protect children in Gaza and all the other conflict zones of the present and future. I am obliged, Mr Stringer.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling, with schools and hospitals bombed, people killed at aid stations, children shot by snipers and people deliberately starved to death. Everyone is trying to understand what further war crimes will have to be committed before the Government will sanction Netanyahu and his entire Cabinet. When we will stop supplying all arms to Israel, including parts for F-35s?
We receive thousands of letters and emails every month. By a long way, the hot and most discussed topic for people in Winchester is the situation in Gaza. It is clear that people are desperate for the Government to use every single diplomatic lever and every bit of power they have to ensure that we get aid in and hostages out, and that we recognise the state of Palestine.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for calling this debate, rightly highlighting the siege that is stopping food, water, hygiene, shelter and medical aid getting into Gaza, putting a spotlight on the aid agencies being blocked, and the role that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is playing, or not playing, in getting aid to where it is needed.
It is very important because this is the month of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. I ask the Minister if that will be raised by our UK Ministers at the General Assembly, to make sure that the issue of humanitarian aid access is a key part of our interventions in New York? I pay tribute to the clergy and aid workers at the Catholic Holy Family church in Gaza, who are staying put to help the population despite the evacuation orders. I just met with the Palestine director of the UN World Food Programme, who says that it has the capacity to feed all of the population, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is not meeting the needs of the population, and it is too unsafe to collect aid. Their main point, though, is about law and order. Is the technical committee going to come into place and enforce the law and order that is needed for access to humanitarian aid? I would also like to know whether this was raised by Prime Minister this morning at the meeting with President Herzog.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for an excellent contribution that clearly came from the heart.
We know that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and has been for far too long. That aid cannot get in is despicable, but that aid workers are not able to get in is also despicable, not least because we cannot just give food to starving people; we have to introduce a comprehensive refeeding programme to allow them to cope with the food that eventually arrives. We need to be taking that seriously, otherwise we will end up with many more casualties than we expect.
In his response, will the Minister tell us a bit more about the evacuation of injured children to the UK? My understanding is that of all the children evacuated from Gaza, only 0.03% have come to the UK so far. Clearly, we need to do more. If the Minister has time, could he also talk about the need to evacuate scholars—the people of the future for Gaza—to the UK? One of my constituents had been told that she could come, but her family—her children—could not. She has now been told that she cannot come either, because she cannot get a visa.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on her contribution and her tireless work in this space.
The humanitarian picture, especially in Gaza, is beyond desperate. The UN special rapporteur has described the situation as “apocalyptic”. Whether it is the starvation of the population, the repeated strikes on health facilities or the obstruction of aid, it is our duty to ensure that the UK’s response—diplomatic, legal and practical—helps to turn statements into access to safe and sufficient aid, and the opportunity for people to survive.
We must fight for safe and reliable aid delivered at scale, backed by a robust ceasefire that protects aid convoys, warehouses, hospitals and shelters. We must also seek to guarantee the protection of civilians and humanitarian personnel. That means an end to evacuation orders, which clearly cannot be done safely under the current conditions.
Israel must also face the consequences for grave breaches of international law. The Government must support international investigations and the enforcement of international humanitarian law, so that impunity does not become embedded as a grim legacy of this conflict. We must champion a comprehensive political track that delivers the only durable answer: security, dignity and self-determination, including the recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a just peace.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. My former colleagues in the aid sector tell me that this is the toughest operating environment that they have ever worked in—some are British, some are international, almost all are Palestinian. My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has powerfully set out how they are risking their lives every day to do their jobs. Most of them are also experiencing their own personal and family humanitarian crises while trying to get relief to others.
One aid agency told me that its staff in Gaza are now living on a single meal a day, and almost all of their families are enrolled in the agency’s own malnutrition programmes. It is set to get worse, as one aid worker put it:
“The situation in Gaza City is incredibly serious. Our staff want desperately to stay on to help their neighbours and communities, but the almost uninterrupted bombardment is merciless…I don’t anticipate that we will be able to hang on in Gaza City for very much longer.”
The only way to restore an effective aid operation is to let the trucks in and across Gaza, protect aid workers at all times and bring an end to the relentless bombardment. That is entirely within the gift of the Government of Israel and within their obligations under international law, and there must be consequences for their flagrant disregard of those obligations. Our constituents see what is happening. As one of my residents put it, “History will ask each of us what we did as we watched the Palestinians starve and die.” Aid workers are risking everything to play their part. I pay tribute to them, and we must do more to play our part too.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
In the words of the President of the European Commission:
“What is happening in Gaza has shaken the conscience of the world.”
In this House, in debate after debate, we come and talk about the horrific scenes in Gaza, yet there is very little action. My constituents are telling me that the Government can and should do more, and I agree.
The starting point should be the recognition of Palestine. By recognising the state of Palestine, we can deliver much-needed aid to the Palestinians, but we can do that only if we recognise Palestine. If Israel then tries to obstruct that, we must deal with it, with the force that needs to be applied to Netanyahu, because he has gone berserk. He is going round like a mad dog—a mad dog that has attacked every sovereign country in and around the region, that has no regard for international law, and that disregards everything to do with humanitarian law and humanity. We cannot sit back—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The humanitarian crisis that we are continuing to see in Gaza is appalling, horrific and unforgivable, and continues to worsen day by day. Since January, there have been 44,000 admissions of children for the treatment of acute malnutrition. We all know that the World Health Organisation, along with the UN, UNICEF and others, recently confirmed that Gaza is facing a man-made famine, with over half a million people affected.
I have often said, as have others, that Netanyahu will only listen to the voice of President Trump and the United States. As President Trump has criticised Netanyahu’s attack on Qatar, I ask the Government: is this not the perfect time to put further pressure on the United States to get an immediate ceasefire that includes full and proper humanitarian aid going into Gaza, facilitating the return of all hostages, and recognising the Palestinian state?
I am pleased that the Government have continued to condemn Israeli settlements and that they recognise that those settlements are illegal under international law. I am also pleased that they are committed to recognising Palestine as a state, but we cannot just sit back and say that we have done all that we can while the unimaginable suffering in Gaza and the occupied territories continues and worsens.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this much-needed debate.
We have seen 44,000 children being treated for malnutrition, 2,146 people killed while seeking aid, 131 children killed by a man-made famine, and 5,700 acres of land stolen by the Israeli army in the last three months alone in the west bank. The violence in the west bank is repellent, and a flood of aid—no less—is required in Gaza. I think we all now struggle to find the words to articulate just how horrific what is happening in Gaza and across the west bank truly is.
I will use my time to ask some questions of the Minister. President Trump is due in the UK next week, and he has said that he is not happy with the “real starvation” he is seeing. How can we further work with the US Administration to encourage Israel to open up the Occupied Palestinian Territories to aid at scale and at an unhindered pace?
Ministers have stated that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is
“incompatible with the principles that underpin our bilateral relationship”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 924.]
and they are prepared to take “further action”. As the road map on UK-Israel relations is being reviewed, what further action can be taken now to help alleviate the immediate humanitarian catastrophe?
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her leadership and wisdom on this topic over a number of years.
Today we have heard powerful testimony and evidence about the desperate need for doctors and aid workers to be able to get into Gaza. There is not a day that goes by where we are not seeing terrible suffering in Gaza: we are hearing about it from our constituents, we are seeing it for ourselves through what is happening, and we are listening every single day to the devastating situation there.
It is vital that we secure access for doctors and aid workers, and that journalists are able to get in so they can tackle the crisis of misinformation in the region. I would like to hear from the Minister today about the international pressure on securing a ceasefire and on ensuring that we can get aid trucks in. We know the UN estimates that we need 600 trucks of aid every day, but we are seeing only half that. How can we maintain that ceasefire through international pressure to make sure that we see long-standing sustainable peace in the region?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. We must continue to strive to use every possible avenue for delivering supplies, so I welcome the Government’s co-operation with Jordan on airdrops. I want to put on record my praise for the efforts of Ministers and diplomats at a difficult time, but we must all do more.
The Palestinian people must not pay the price for the atrocities of Hamas, yet Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza with
“no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”.
We all know that starvation as a method of warfare is illegal under international humanitarian law. The Gaza strip has now faced what is effectively a siege. The UN-backed panel, as hon. Members have said, has declared that there is now a famine in parts of Gaza. I know that the Government believe that the strip must be flooded with aid, not drip-fed through the piecemeal deliveries of the failing Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
According to the House of Commons Library, the UK considers Gaza’s status as occupied. As the occupying power, Israel is bound by the fourth Geneva convention and Hague conventions, which require it to ensure civilians’ access to food and medicine and to avoid collective punishment. The UK views Israel’s naval blockade as part of that. Blockades are governed by customary international law, including the San Remo manual, which requires legality, necessity and humanitarian access.
Given the humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s role in fomenting it, do the Government have a view on whether we and other countries have a legal right to provide aid by sea? Can the Minister outline whether the Government have looked at whether the Royal Navy could deploy ships off the coast of Gaza or a hospital ship? I am not singling out Israel; I am asking that we treat it by the standards, norms and law that all nations must adhere to, especially democracies. Those rules are fraying before our own eyes, and that is terrible, mainly for the Palestinians, but also—
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. The importance of improving humanitarian access to help offset the intolerable hardship, suffering and misery that currently faces those living in Gaza cannot be overstated. For children alone, this war has been beyond cruel. Save the Children, for example, has recently reported that at least 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 2023. To put that in perspective, the capacity of the O2 arena here in London is 20,000 people.
More must be done to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement. The UN-led co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale with meaningful assistance.
I acknowledge the Government’s position that it is for the international courts, not Governments, to determine if genocide is taking place. However, looking at the evidence that we have all seen—air attacks, ground attacks, displacement of people, targeting of health services, attacks on aid workers, access to food as a method of control, and deliberate and consistent blocking of humanitarian aid—it is difficult to see how those courts will not reach the decision that what we are now seeing is genocide.
Fleur Anderson
On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall.
Before I try to address some of the many important points made in today’s debate, I would like to say that this matter is very close to my heart. As a student in the early 1980s, I spent a year researching in Israel and Egypt, based for much of the time on Kibbutz Re’im, which would be attacked by Hamas militants on 7 October 2023. In those now far-off days, I remember going into Gaza with my Israeli friends to visit their Palestinian friends, to drink coffee and to trade. Those were happy times, and they show that another way is possible.
I should also add that, as a member of the International Development Committee, I have not only travelled to the west bank and witnessed at first hand the effect of IDF teargassing of UNRWA schools, but heard testimony from humanitarian workers, doctors, ambulance drivers and paramedics, sometimes in tears over the utterly appalling targeting of humanitarian staff and children by Israeli drones—shooting children at bomb sites in Gaza, some days in the groin, other days in the legs, and other days in the head. This behaviour is most foul, and has even been acknowledged to be ethnic cleansing by none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It must stop or be stopped by all means possible.
I will shoot through some of the points that have been made, because they are all valuable: the 28,000 women and girls killed; the fabric of life destroyed; the latest attack on Qatar; the disinformation campaign; the provision of rotten food; the US President’s visit and the chance to lobby him; access for aid workers, not just aid; 98% of aid workers killed are Palestinians; 2,000 people killed in orchestrated killing; aid workers killed in Gaza; the trauma and the fear; the Israeli denials, obfuscation and confusion; the attacks on the Palestine Red Crescent; the attacks on hospitals; deaths of civilians; starvation, hunger and famine—it goes on and on and on.
I go to the Lib Dem position: obviously, we say that the situation in Gaza is unconscionable. The Liberal Democrats firmly support human rights, international law and the peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Above all, we believe that all humans should be treated with dignity and have their basic rights respected. Like many millions around the world, we have been deeply devastated by the scenes in Gaza, and increasingly now in the west bank. That is not to take away the trauma experienced by the Israeli people following the heinous attack that Hamas undertook on 7 October. There is no overestimating the grief, anger and trauma that they are still feeling.
We have been deeply concerned by the violence between Israel and Hamas, which has led to mass displacement, immense suffering and loss of life. No Israeli or Palestinian should be killed simply because of where they were born. The UK must play a proactive role in achieving a peaceful and lasting solution that ensures dignity, security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Government must finally recognise that they need to do more to ensure that Britain is not complicit in human rights violations, starting by immediately halting all arms sales to Israel.
The Government have still failed to release their legal advice surrounding the ICJ rulings on the occupation. Why? Will they now make clear what advice they have received regarding the legality of actions undertaken by Israel in Gaza? In the light of the confusion caused by the letter from the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), is genocide taking place?
We call for a multilateral push to secure a renewed ceasefire to end the humanitarian catastrophe, as well as unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza. We need that ceasefire to hold to ensure that the remaining hostages are released and that the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza is alleviated. Hamas terrorists have shown despicable cruelty even in the release of Israeli hostages and also in the return of the bodies of hostages killed in captivity. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has left countless people in danger and in a state of famine, and many thousands dead.
The UN estimates that women and children have accounted for 70% of fatalities in Gaza since October 2023. It has stated that more than 1.9 million people have been displaced, including more than 1 million women and girls, as estimated by UN Women. The entire population of Gaza—approximately 2.2 million people—is experiencing acute food insecurity, and a famine has been declared in the Gaza strip.
The UN has noted that an estimated 63 women, including 37 mothers, are being killed daily, and 17,000 Palestinian children are believed to have been orphaned since the war on Gaza began. More than 183 women per day are giving birth without pain relief, while hundreds of babies have died because of a lack of electricity to power incubators, and 95% of pregnant and breastfeeding women face severe food poverty.
Reports of sexual and gender-based violence in this conflict, including allegations against Israeli forces and about Hamas’s actions on 7 October 2023, are deeply concerning. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has uncovered that nearly 70% of those killed in Gaza over a six-month period were women and children. That is a disproportionately high level, compared with usual conflicts.
Many Israelis are disgusted by the behaviour of their Government. They have been openly demonstrating and even bravely burning their draft cards, which will result in their imprisonment. We need to stand and act in solidarity with them and with Palestinians, who just want to have a peaceful future.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through.
Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Sir Alec, you are an experienced Member. Can we move to ordinary parliamentary debate? I have not had any reports.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie.
The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place.
The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it?
We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible.
I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from.
With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have caught up on time, so the Minister has a decent amount of time to speak. I ask him, if possible, to find a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. There was a rather large number of questions, but I will try to address them as much as possible, take interventions and leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), whose work in this area is so deep and respected across the Chamber, as we have heard. I may not be able to make as much progress through my speech as I might under normal circumstances, but I hope colleagues will forgive me, as many of them will already have heard me speak about the middle east for about an hour in the main Chamber.
My hon. Friend is a stalwart voice on these questions. She has worked on them tirelessly in Parliament and before. I knew her when she was the chief executive of Medical Aid for Palestinians, and many across this Chamber will appreciate not just her work, but the work of the organisation she used to lead.
It goes without saying that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains a scar on our collective conscience. Many Members have asked what the view of history or the view of our constituents will be when this conflict hopefully comes to a close, and that sense rests heavily on me personally and heavily on the Government. More than 64,000 lives have been lost since October 2023. More than 2,000 people have been killed and 16,000 have been injured while seeking aid since May. Those are extraordinary figures in a—I was about to say in a modern context, but in any context at all.
Let me turn first to some of the questions about accountability. I have called on the Israeli Government to conduct independent investigations into a number of strikes on a number of occasions. I agree with the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy; we will call again for independent investigations, particularly into the recent so-called double-tap strike on the hospital. It is a source of enormous frustration and tension between the Israeli Government and the British Government that, even in cases that have involved British nationals being struck in drone-recorded videos, as in the case of the World Central Kitchen attack, while there have been preliminary investigations conducted within the IDF, we still await, 15 months on, the findings of the military advocate general. I have met those families repeatedly and they, like so many other families affected, await the level of investigation and accountability that would give them satisfaction and provide confidence that the Israeli Government are taking accountability seriously.
One of the contributions suggested that the Government were looking away or turning away. This is the longest opportunity I will have to talk about humanitarian aid since the recess, and I want to reassure colleagues that during that period I met UNRWA, MAP, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and, perhaps most searingly, British doctors recently returned from Gaza, on a number of occasions. I heard directly the tales not just of injuries, as so many hon. Members have recounted during the debate, but of the injuries to children, the similarities in those injuries over particular periods and the impact that had on the British doctors who had gone out, let alone those affected and their families.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister knows from when I wrote to him that what distinguished the shooting up and ransacking of the Action around Bethlehem Children with Disability charity by the Israeli army was the fact that it is a British charity. Will he pursue compensation from the Israeli Government for that British charity for the destruction of the children’s centre in Palestine, as was raised by my constituents in North Curry?
Mr Falconer
If I have not responded to the letter, I will ensure that I do so, and I will add the case to the list that I have described of cases on which we seek further action.
In relation to questions of accountability, there are areas where we need to see much more action but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy rightly pointed out, it is not simply the strikes themselves that impede humanitarian work; there is the question of visas and access for those doctors and other skilled humanitarian workers, just as there are outstanding questions that this House has heard many times from me in relation to so-called dual-use goods. The policy on those goods is applied in such a way that it is very difficult to provide, both in medical and in many other contexts, the kind of equipment and supplies that aid agencies require to carry out their duties.
I turn to the important questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). It is regrettably the case that not only is the volume of aid being brought in through the GHF insufficient, but huge volumes of it are being looted. The percentages are difficult to assess, but the WFP thinks that at least 80% of aid trucks are being looted almost immediately, so the ability of anyone to provide assurance that aid is reaching the most vulnerable people is very limited, and any assurance about where that aid ends up is also very limited.
I understand the frustration of hon. Members across the House who often press me to try to find other methods by which aid might be brought into Gaza, whether that is by air or sea. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy has operational experience of the limitations of the alternatives, which have been explored on several occasions. I do not rule any alternative out. Over the recess, along with our Jordanian partners, we supported aid drops into Gaza. Of course, we will consider any measures that we can use to try and assist people.
I will move on to the important questions about medical and other evacuations shortly. However, I am afraid that the inescapable truth is that it is only the UN operation, operating only by land, that can make a real difference to the absolutely horrific circumstances that are described in the IPC report. It is only via land that the volumes of aid required can be delivered; it is only via land, with UN support, that we can ensure that there are sufficient distribution centres; and it is only through those tried and tested mechanisms that one can have confidence about where the aid ends up.
Andy McDonald
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country.
So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public? We must know how this President is being received.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Just before I call the Minister to respond, we have done really well on the timings so far. However, if hon. Members are going to make interventions, can they be short and to the point, please?
Mr Falconer
Thank you, Mr Stringer; I will try to speed up as well. I will come to the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) shortly, but first, I will just segue from the overall humanitarian challenges to discuss some of the specific areas of work on which I and the rest of the Government have been heavily engaged over the recess period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy asked vital questions about the evacuation of vulnerable people. Over the recess, we repeated our commitments to assist both medically vulnerable children and a number of scholars, and there are a number of other people, too, whom I and the Foreign Office are trying to get out of Gaza. However, the operation to get anybody out of Gaza is enormously complex and involves a range of operational partners, and the brute truth is that it also involves the Israeli Government. Nobody can leave Gaza without the support of the Israeli Government.
I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress on some of those cases, but not all of them. It is an overwhelming focus for me—the operational challenge implicit in getting even handfuls of people out of Gaza. This contribution is, of course, a tiny one, given the scale of need outlined in the IPC report and everywhere else. However, despite the small number of people involved, the operational challenge remains great.
I hope to be able to update the House on the specifics shortly. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who are personally affected. As soon as I am in a position to give confirmation on specific cases, I will do so. I know that there are so many right hon. and hon. Members who are deeply concerned about this situation. I can give the House the commitment that at the moment there is nothing else on which I am spending more time, and I will continue to do so until as many people as we can possibly rescue are rescued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East asked an important question, which was also asked by other Members. Just to clarify, President Herzog’s visit is a private visit. He has come not at the invitation of the British Government. Nevertheless, given his presence in the UK, we are taking the opportunity to raise a number of very important issues with him.
The Foreign Secretary met the President this morning, and the Prime Minister will meet him this evening. I am sure that they will provide a full account of the points that they have raised. From speaking briefly to the Foreign Secretary, I know that she raised a range of important points, including the importance of Israeli support for our evacuations, over the course of her discussion this morning.
I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy some time to respond, but I would like to say that, understandably, Members raised the question of determinations, and I want to make as clear as I can how the British Government approach genocide determinations. They are, obviously, a question for a competent court. No competent court has made a determination, but courts have made provisional findings, which we would clearly abide by. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out in his letter that, of course, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, we conduct assessments of likely breaches across the whole range of our international legal commitments, including in relation to genocide.
As hon. and right hon. Members will know, there are different tests for different elements of international law. As I have always told the House, we take our commitments under all elements of international law, including the genocide convention, extremely seriously. We keep all those assessments under regular review. The spirit of the previous Foreign Secretary’s letter was not to break with what hon. Members have heard me say many times—that it is for a competent court to make determinations—but to seek to give further aeration to the IDC about what our internal assessment looks like on that particular element.
Melanie Ward
It is clear from the sheer number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate how much this issue matters to us and our constituents—how much horror and disgust constituents across the whole country feel when they see what is being done in Gaza. It was striking that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), raised links that their constituencies have with different local charitable organisations that operate all across our isles to try to get help to people in need.
I want particularly to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), because I know that the World Central Kitchen attack was particularly felt by people who lost loved ones—I do not like to say “lost”: they had loved ones killed in that attack. We send our solidarity to her constituents, who are trying to deal with that still.
The Minister ran out of time before he was able to answer my very specific questions about the restrictions placed on humanitarian NGOs, including British NGOs. Will he write to me with answers to those detailed questions as soon as he is able? That would be appreciated by the many charities, including here in the UK, that are deeply concerned about the future of their operations, as well as their supporters all across our country.
I want to highlight a couple of other speeches—I do not have time to go through loads. First, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) made some important points about international law, including that Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, has the legal duty to ensure that the needs of civilians are met, which it is clearly not, and that the ICJ provisional measures included the need for aid to get in. Another Member raised the need for the Government to bring forward their response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which of course was given more than a year ago.
I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), who is a former aid worker. She knows what she is talking about and does so much important work on this and related issues across the House.
Finally, the Minister was right when he said that we need to bear in mind how history will view what we are all doing in this moment. The Minister knows the gravity of the moment we are in—famine, ethnic cleansing and genocide. He knows that our actions must be equal to the scale and the gravity of the moment. Members across the House urge us to truly do everything we can in this moment to bring these horrors to an end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Playgrounds: Bournemouth East
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered playgrounds in Bournemouth East constituency.
Eight months ago, I stood just a few seats away from this spot to lead the first debate on playgrounds in eight years—the longest in 17 years. The previous debate, 17 years ago, saw the last Labour Government launch the first and only national play strategy, backed by £235 million of investment in children’s right to play. On behalf of my constituents, it is an honour to open this debate, my second, and to turn a spotlight specifically on my constituency, focusing exclusively on playgrounds in Bournemouth East.
When Parliament has effectively ignored playgrounds in Bournemouth for 17 years, is it any wonder that they are rotting? Is it any wonder that people feel pushed away from politics when Parliament did not speak to their priorities to any meaningful extent for nearly two decades? Is it any wonder that people feel disaffected with democracy when the last Government did not care enough about children to invest in their playgrounds? Children who sat GCSEs this year were not even alive the last time that Parliament seriously considered playground provision. We are talking about near adults whose formative years went unexamined at the very highest levels of the last Conservative Government.
Children make up 20% of our population and 100% of our future, but we are not treating them that way as a country. As Play England’s Eugene Minogue says, “Let’s start with play.” This really matters. In 1925, Lloyd George called play “nature’s training for life”. Frank Dobson later described it as,
“what children and young people do—when they follow their own ideas, in their own way, and for their own reasons.”
Play is instinctive and natural; it is how children learn, grow and take responsibility. In Gaza, where children are hungry, exhausted and emotionally wounded, the instinct to play still endures. Just two weeks ago, Palestinian children were filmed playing with a parachute used to drop aid.
Play is natural, essential and deeply personal. It nurtures emotional development, builds confidence and fosters creativity, collaboration and resilience. Those are the skills that renew our democracy and reinvigorate our liberal values, but right now, in Bournemouth East and across England, that right is being eroded. Lloyd George warned how infringing the right to play can cause
“deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens.”
Lloyd George was right.
Today, 2 million children in England live more than 10 minutes from a playground, and one in eight have no garden—in London, it is one in five. Nearly 800 playgrounds have closed in the past decade, casualties of austerity. In Bournemouth East, only 35% of children live within reach of a play area.
What are the deep and enduring harms that result when children cannot play outdoors? First, they retreat indoors, glued to screens. As my constituent Helen from Southbourne says,
“We must provide exciting, enjoyable and affordable alternatives to screen time.”
Secondly, as Baroness Longfield, the former Children’s Commissioner reminds us,
“Play is a social justice issue—it’s about who gets to thrive and who gets left behind.”
Among those children being left behind the most are wheelchair users and neurodivergent children. As Terri from Muscliff says:
“If a child uses a wheelchair, there is nothing they can do.”
Teens for whom traditional spaces such as multi-use games areas and skate parks just do not work are excluded too. In particular, teenage girls who mostly want social spaces near, but not within, family zones are not being catered for. If inclusive design is to be the baseline, not a bonus, we must listen to my constituent Jennie Savage, a community place-making designer, who, at our surgery on Saturday, spoke about the importance of listening to the very people who use playgrounds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my time on the council in a previous life, we always encouraged playgrounds, and it was the same in the Assembly; now, we are here in Parliament. New playgrounds are really important, and they need to include wheelchair-accessible swings and roundabouts, sensory play areas, nature zones and family facilities such as toilets and baby rooms. Are those the things that the hon. Gentleman is pushing for?
Tom Hayes
I entirely agree; the hon. Gentleman pre-empts some of what I am about to say. Community infrastructure and accessible infrastructure are absolutely critical alongside playgrounds.
The public voted for change last year, and we now happily have a different Government. The question is whether this Government will restore playgrounds for future generations. My first year as an MP has taught me how difficult it is to bring together Departments around the cross-cutting issue of play. We have a fantastic Minister, Baroness Taylor, who holds responsibility for play. To support her, this Parliament needs to agitate for a strategy with objectives and deadlines. That is my first request.
Seventeen years ago, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham, as Secretaries of State, published England’s first national play strategy, and much of it still stands. It is time to dust it off. This is unfinished business for Labour, and momentum is building now, as it was before the last play strategy and the multimillion-pound budget were announced. In June, I hosted the launch of Play England’s 10-year strategy, “It All Starts with Play!”, here in Parliament, and I also welcomed the Raising the Nation Play Commission’s final report, “Everything to Play For”, which called for a new national strategy, a statutory duty for councils and a cultural shift that places play at the heart of public life. Last week, a new all-party parliamentary group on play launched with a Minister in attendance. I am honoured to chair it. That followed, on the same day, a session on play by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Yesterday, I was pleased to sponsor and speak at a LEGO reception in Parliament. The LEGO group, supported by the LEGO Foundation, launched “The Power of Play”, a report that looked into its project in Tower Hamlets, where poverty limits and denies access to play, as it does around the country.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
In my constituency, many children have no playgrounds. The population is very young—over 69% are under the age of 45—and play equipment in the playgrounds is of very low quality. Does my hon. Friend believe that funding must be set aside to ensure our playgrounds are brought up to the correct standard?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point about funding our playgrounds so that they are accessible, safe and fun. I commend the work that she does on behalf of her constituents, particularly children.
A strategy alone will not be enough. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a play sufficiency duty in England, mirroring legislation in Wales and Scotland. It was backed by 70-plus MPs from across parties, although unfortunately there were no signatories from Reform. It sought to correct the wrong that England does not have the same statutory duty as Wales and Scotland. It is wrong that Scottish and Welsh councils regularly assess and support play provision, while this Parliament does not regard that as essential for English councils.
We saw what happened when the previous Labour Government announced a strategy and a budget. The coalition quietly dropped the strategy and drew a thick red line through the budget. Without a statutory duty, Parliament cannot protect playgrounds for childhoods in this country, so a statutory duty is my second request.
We can and should extend Sport England-style duties to play, making it a statutory consideration, like sports facilities, not a discretionary extra that gets ignored. That is my third request.
My fourth and final request, which goes to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) made, is that we need to talk about funding. Put simply, this will require financial investment from the Government. I care deeply about giving children their right to play, which is why I am shining a light on Bournemouth East in Parliament to help bring money to our town. In Bournemouth, we are embracing the challenge of improving our play areas. Thanks to council officers such as Martin Whitchurch and Rebecca Whelan-Edmonds, all 171 play sites in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and all 1,175 pieces of play equipment have been mapped, audited and costed. A consultation has closed, and I have represented constituents’ views on proposals into it. The consultation included events, and I joined two to hear from constituents. I want to balance my admiration for the good work done by those officers with my constituents’ need to represent their concerns for the council’s plans.
While every playground matters in Bournemouth East, some raise particular concerns, such as Kings Park and its two play areas. At the Ashley Road site, security fencing dominated until I got it removed. The zipwire is missing, the bandstand and bins are rusty, and offensive graffiti scarred a bench until I lobbied the council to scrub it clean. The sudden removal of equipment without warning or explanation has deepened frustration. It struck such a chord with year 6 students from King’s Park academy that they staged a protest in their final day of school. Many of their placards remain in my office and are a daily reminder to campaign harder. It was an honour to stand with those children as they voiced their hopes and called on the council to act in their very first protest. If the Minister would like to green-light funding for a trampoline to go into the refurbished Kings Park playground in Bournemouth, I am sure the students of King’s Park academy would be most grateful.
Last week I met with Kirsty, Kate and David, Rebecca, Shelley, Robyn, Jonathan, Charlotte and their children at Harewood junior school. They were clear that these spaces are vital for children’s health, wellbeing and social development. Yet they have been overlooked for too long. I have met Rio and his mum Amanda at Mallard Road play area, just steps from their home. Rio organised a protest at 9 am on 6 August and rallied 30 people to stand up for their park—an incredible achievement. Some brought home-made posters to voice their concerns. Dave, who lives nearby with his two children, says,
“We do not have a garden so the play space is very needed as parents do not have the money sometimes to take their children out.”
For Dave and others, that park is a lifeline. Kayleigh, a mother of three, says,
“With the cost of living being what it is right now, families are relying more than ever on free local spaces like this one.”
She reminds us that play areas are not just for children; they bring people together. Parents chat, children make friends and local bonds are formed. Without those spaces, we lose more than just swings; we lose connection. Kayleigh ended with a powerful plea,
“I understand budgets are tight, but I’d ask you to think of this not as a cost, but as an investment in our children, our neighbourhood, and in our community’s future. Please do not take this away from them.
Let’s find a way to protect this space for the children who use it now, and for those who will in the years to come.”
The proposed closure of 13 playgrounds across Muscliff, Strouden Park and Townsend in my constituency is sparking serious concern. Residents fear longer journeys, fewer spontaneous visits and exclusion for those without transport, which will inevitably hit the disadvantaged families of those communities hardest. The promise of a new playground at Landford Way is being understood as a trade-off for the loss of those 13 doorstep play areas, and it is not reassuring people. It is seen as a reduction in equity, not as an enhancement in access. Muscliff Park, a high-use site, has seen strong demands for reopening the toilet facilities, reviving the café and launching a full refurbishment programme, which again goes to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was making, which is that there is a deeper truth here that parks are not just patches of grass and playgrounds, not just swings and slides; they are outdoor community centres. Reframing them as essential community infrastructure is essential.
Elsewhere, constituents have raised concerns about proposals to consider and relocate Tuckton tea gardens and Riverlands play park. Others have voiced concerns about Beaufort Park, Knowlton Gardens, Clarence Road, Shelley Road, Churchill Gardens, Moordown rec and Epiphany play areas. The Minister will be pleased to hear that there is not a test on these playgrounds. I name them because they are so important to my constituents. Above all, residents are asking for a strategic approach: yes to investing in busy destination play spaces, but not to the detriment of smaller playgrounds on people’s doorsteps. The message is simple: play matters and our communities are ready to help shape its future.
For my constituents, play matters for very distinct reasons. Children’s development, their mental health and emotional support is key. Sarah in Strouden Park, whose family uses Mallard Road play area, says that play
“lays down positive habits for life.”
Rachel in Townsend, who uses Moordown rec, says,
“It is vital for children to be outside and free resources are a lifeline for many. Our children spend so much time learning or on screens that play is desperately needed”.
Danielle in Boscombe West, who uses Kings Park at the Ashley Road site, says that playgrounds
“help children learn through play. They are a free activity that helps low-income families who otherwise would have no outdoor space access. They keep the older children occupied rather than committing anti-social behaviour.”
At the other play area in Kings Park, Clarence Road, Thomas, who lives in Boscombe East, says,
“It is an essential part of our day that gives the girls a chance for physical play and to decompress after school. It’s really important for our eldest, who is dyslexic and often finds the school day mentally exhausting.”
Playgrounds are also great for community and social connection. Chris in Muscliff, who uses Knowlton Gardens play area with his family, says,
“Micro communities within Muscliff use these green spaces/play parks (what’s left of them) and rely on them for their own wellbeing as well as their families.”
Charlotte in Littledown, whose family uses Kings Park, Clarence Road, says:
“They are one of the few remaining things that parents and children can do together as a community outside in nature for free.”
And Judith in Southbourne says about Riverlands play area:
“Grandparents who take their children there also have an increased social circle—not only with other elderly people but with young people who might be using it. I often find myself in conversation with people I don’t know of all different ages.”
There are clearly significant benefits to having playgrounds.
Play is not just about playgrounds; it is a mindset, a culture, a lifeline, and it deserves to be woven into every part of community life. For children who have known trauma or injury, health play services are critical. They help children to cope, connect and heal, both emotionally and psychologically, yet for too long health play services have been treated as optional. That must change. Play specialists should be embedded in paediatric care, supporting children from waiting rooms to treatment rooms, and even in operating theatres. I saw this in action in Poole hospital, with Lego used to explain MRI scans, playful syringe demonstrations and outdoor play woven into physiotherapy.
In June, NHS England and Starlight launched “play well”, a new toolkit co-produced by over 60 professionals with support from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Care Quality Commission and Sophie’s Legacy. It is backed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and research showing that therapeutic play reduces anxiety, loneliness and the risk of medical trauma, so I fully endorse it.
Play also happened in Sure Start centres, so I am thrilled that the Government are bringing back a revamped Sure Start programme. Recent reports by University College London, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Young Lives all proved the benefits of Sure Starts and their play provision. Sure Starts prevented over 5,000 hospital admissions annually and halved inequality gaps, and children living near centres scored higher in GCSEs. The experience of Bournemouth East’s Sure Starts, delivered so excellently by the YMCA in Townsend and Springbourne, was that safe, joyful play helps children to develop socially and emotionally. I cannot wait to see a revamped, reinvigorated Sure Start in my constituency.
Play is good for our economy. The Association of Play Industries has 60 members contributing around £250 million to the economy. The association represents 70% of the industry, so if we extrapolate, it has been estimated that the industry is worth approximately £357 million. Many of those businesses are small, British and family-owned.
I will close where I started, which is to say that the people of Bournemouth East have felt they have not been heard for too long. They know that a child’s right to play is important. They know the importance of playgrounds to a child’s right to play. We must protect these spaces and improve them. We must stand up for play everywhere, not just in Bournemouth East. After 14 long years of austerity, with the benefit of a Labour Government, we should stand up for play across the country.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. I commend him for the eloquence with which he stated his case and how he always speaks on behalf of those he represents. I thank him for the tenacity and dedication with which he has continued since his election to promote playground and play space provision. I note and recognise his ongoing efforts to maintain and improve playground provision in his Bournemouth East seat. His council will have heard that message, too, as it has on other occasions. I thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter. I should also welcome him to his role as the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on play, which, as he mentioned, met for the first time last week. I am delighted that, through that avenue, he will continue to champion this work, and I look forward to the continuing discussions in this area.
The Government recognise that access to playgrounds is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities and in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young and old people. My hon. Friend made an important point about the benefits that playgrounds bring for parents and grandparents, who find others in their community to speak to when they are with their children or grandchildren in those settings. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I will speak in what remains of my time in large part to the planning system and how it supports play, but I will touch on other areas.
Our planning system plays an important role in securing and protecting playgrounds, but this is not the reserve of planning alone. As a whole, the Government are considering how to improve both the availability and quality of play spaces across England. Following my meeting with my hon. Friend after our debate on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I wrote, as promised, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we do all we can across Government to support better outcomes for children and communities. We are considering how to bolster further the provision of sufficient opportunities for play, and although I cannot speak for those Departments and their thinking in policy terms, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government as a whole have heard his call to explore a national strategy in the area.
With local authorities and industry specialists, the Government have established the parks working group to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces across the country, including in Bournemouth East. The work includes increasing the number of playgrounds more generally. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver funding to enable neighbourhood boards in 75 communities across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. The boards can choose to use that funding for a wide range of activities, including to upgrade play areas.
My hon. Friend knows—we have a difference of opinion on this point—that it is not the Government’s intention to place new statutory responsibilities on local authorities in relation to play. We are instead giving them the freedom and flexibility they need to meet local needs, including looking after treasured green spaces. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities can rely on. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement in financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. The Government have also committed to simplifying the wider local funding landscape, reducing the number of grants and consolidating them into the local government finance settlement, so that local authorities are able to plan more effectively for infrastructure, amenities and services.
As my hon. Friend also knows, because we have had many a discussion on this point, the national planning policy framework includes a number of safeguards for play spaces. It makes it clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. That includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal. Information gained from those assessments should be used to determine what recreational provision is needed, which development plans should then seek to accommodate.
The framework also includes strong protections for these spaces, where they may be threatened by development. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such spaces can be approved. It means that these facilities can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. My hon. Friend welcomed the further strengthening of that policy in our update to the NPPF in December last year, through the explicit safeguarding of formal play spaces.
My hon. Friend knows—we have had this discussion, and I will continue to engage with him on the subject—that in recognition of the importance of play space provision, we are actively considering what more we can say about this important matter, including on the vital role of communities in ensuring that play spaces are fit for purpose. The debate today has, as have other discussions I have had with my hon. Friend, provided invaluable feedback and experience on play spaces and the issues affecting them in his part of England, and he has spoken about others more generally.
We are, as my hon. Friend knows, intending to launch a consultation on what are termed new national policies for decision making—that is, the rules by which development management is managed and taken forward. That currently sits within the national planning policy framework, but he knows we are looking at how we make reforms in that area. I have taken on board his points about what more that suite of national policies might do in relation to the provision of play space. I know that he will contribute, as a constituency MP, to that consultation when it goes live.
A couple of other points are worth mentioning. The national planning policy framework is supplemented by national design guidance, which encourages the provision of open space and play space, including guidance on types of play space and how this can be integrated into new development in an accessible, inclusive and secure way. We are in the process of updating that suite of national design guidance and we are reviewing existing guidance on play space as part of that effort.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of Sport England. With regard to that role, and potentially, as he put it, extending its duties to play, he will know that the Government have a moratorium on new statutory consultees. However, we want to improve and streamline statutory consultee arrangements in England more generally and empower local areas to make those important decisions. We remain committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended, and the NPPF ensures that those interests are maintained in the planning system, as I have set out.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East on securing this debate. I thank him for outlining, with his customary clarity and force, the issues affecting playgrounds in his constituency and around the country. Parks and playgrounds provide places for social connection, support health and wellbeing, increase community engagement and volunteering, help people to connect with nature, and can be a foundation for social capital that underpins local opportunity and prosperity.
We will continue to do all we can to bring together key stakeholders, as well as local and central Government officials, across the parks and green space sector to identify effective and deliverable solutions to improve the quality and sustainability of those spaces. More widely, this Government remain committed to creating a planning system that delivers the play space opportunities that my hon. Friend’s constituency and other parts of the country need. I look forward in particular to sharing our updated planning policies and designing guidance with him and other hon. Members in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the heritage festival of the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This month we celebrate a pivotal moment in our history: the first steam-powered passenger train, which marked the birth of public rail travel as we know it and had a profound impact on the social, cultural and industrial heritage of Britain and countries around the world.
Two hundred years ago, on 26 September 1825, the world’s first passenger locomotive was put on the tracks outside the world’s first passenger train station: Aycliffe Lane, now Heighington station, in my constituency. Locomotion No. 1, designed by Newcastle engineer George Stephenson, was about to make history. On the following day, when the train left Shildon in the Bishop Auckland constituency, steam-hauled passenger railways began and passenger rail was born. More than 450 passengers in converted coal wagons passed through my hometown of Newton Aycliffe, then through Darlington, where the train was greeted by 10,000 people, before reaching the outskirts of Stockton around half past 3 in the afternoon. All modern railways, across the globe, trace their beginnings back to that journey and that incredible part of our heritage.
I want to set out, with enormous pride, the impact the event went on to have around the world; the way it transformed our society, culture and leisure time; and how we will celebrate the heritage of our groundbreaking railway with a major cultural festival this year. The contribution of that first journey was enormous. It endowed the north-east and our country with a rich heritage of innovation, inventiveness and ingenuity. It seems strange to think it now, but, because the Stockton and Darlington railway brought passenger rail into being for the first time, it led to the invention of many things that we have long taken for granted.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I cannot claim that the Stockton and Darlington railway went anywhere near my Carlisle constituency, but I cannot let this moment pass without celebrating Carlisle and north Cumbria’s role in the heritage of that line. Indeed, the engine that was first used on that marvellous line was Locomotion No. 1, created—as my hon. Friend says—by the Stephenson company. The company went on to create the iconic Stephenson’s Rocket, which, hon. Members might wish to know, finished its days in service on Lord Carlisle’s line in my constituency. I invite my hon. Friend to celebrate not only the glorious Stockton and Darlington line, but the inventiveness of our heritage in our railway industry.
Alan Strickland
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is a doughty champion for the city of Carlisle and has an astonishing knack of linking all subjects back to Carlisle’s rich heritage. We indeed celebrate its crucial contribution in this debate. Carlisle is lucky to have such a good advocate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the heritage festival of the Stockton and Darlington railway. When he mentions what he is celebrating in his constituency, I think of my constituency, where we have a great culture and heritage that started in 1606 with a market town. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that we celebrate the individual culture and heritage of local areas and communities, understanding that someone who does not know where they come from can never know where they are going?
Alan Strickland
The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is only by understanding the rich social and cultural heritage across our United Kingdom that we can look properly at and understand the future. I understand he is also a doughty champion for his constituency, from time to time.
The Stockton and Darlington railway made a great difference. The world’s first railway carriage—quite rightly called “Experiment”—was brought into being. Thankfully, railway companies have slightly upgraded their carriages since the coal wagons were used. Station waiting rooms had to be invented because passengers did not want to wait in the rain; without their invention, David Lean could never have filmed “Brief Encounter”. Railway bridges such as Skerne bridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), which is the oldest continuously used railway bridge in the world; signalling systems; railway pubs including one where passengers’ pints were pulled by the first woman to work for a railway company, Mary Simpson; and of course iron tracks fixed to railway sleepers to a set gauge—they all had to be invented for the first time by the railway. Each of those elements of travel, used around the globe, traces its evolution to this extraordinary piece of history.
This could not have just happened anywhere; it could only have happened in the north-east. Our region had the key ingredients for this railway revolution: coal under our feet to power the engines; world-leading inventors and engineers, such as George Stephenson and his son Robert, who spent 10 years experimenting with tracks, locomotives and all the parts that make up the railway; and dynamic entrepreneurs, such as local Quaker Edward Pease, whose investment in this groundbreaking technology was critical to its success.
It is difficult to overstate how important that first journey was. Most importantly, it was proof of concept. It showed that rail travel could work for passengers, not just goods, and by connecting people, raw materials, markets and ports it helped unleash the industrial revolution as never before. It also changed how we all live. Changing the way people were connected to each other fundamentally altered Britain socially, culturally and economically. It had a huge impact on all aspects of our lives.
For the first time, working-class people could afford to travel far from the town or village they were born in, powering social mobility. For the first time, people could commute to work, with the railway allowing businesses to diversify and expand their workforces. For the first time, working people could travel for their holidays. Saltburn, in the Redcar constituency, became one of the world’s first tourist resorts, with a hotel that trains pulled up to directly, so that passengers and their luggage could move seamlessly from carriage to room. That first journey might well have led to the world’s first package holiday, when a pub landlord in Shildon in the Bishop Auckland constituency sold return tickets to Stockton races, which included the price of race admission.
Passenger rail also transformed sport, leisure and the way we come together in society. In 1882, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway put on special trains to transport 2,000 fans to the FA cup semi-final in Huddersfield. Did you know, Mr Stringer, that it is the early railways we have to thank for modern timekeeping? As villages, towns and cities became more connected, it no longer made sense for each place to keep its own local time based on the sun’s position in the sky. That was found to be slightly impractical. For reliable railway timetables to be created, the UK embraced a single unified standard time across the whole country, which we had never done before. The event genuinely changed the world for ever, bringing us into the modern age.
We have a proud history of celebrating our region and country getting the world on track 200 years ago. On the 100th anniversary, local schoolchildren were given specially made medals. For the 150th celebrations, quite extraordinarily, special cans were distributed containing steam from Locomotion No. 1. I am not clear how that worked.
It is brilliant that we have been celebrating the 200th anniversary across the country with the Railway 200 campaign. In the north-east, the S&DR200 festival includes more than 40 events from film screenings to steam train galas. I am delighted it is being supported by the Arts Council, the Heritage Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—for which I thank the Minister—and Transport Ministers including Lord Hendy, a renowned steam train buff whom I met earlier.
I am also incredibly proud that a newly renovated replica of Locomotion No. 1 and its passenger carriage will travel along sections of the original line, including Skerne bridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, where the Hopetown museum has been refurbished. My hon. Friend is working hard to include the local community, including by developing a blue plaque scheme to celebrate the railway heritage of that proud town.
It is also fitting that the train will pass through Heighington station, where this all began. Our history of innovative rail manufacturing continues just a few hundred yards away at the world-class Hitachi train factory, for which I was proud to campaign to secure a bright future. Thanks to Hitachi and the fantastic campaign by local volunteers of the Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, we have managed to secure the funds needed to renovate the historic station to its former glory and restore the building, which is of such national and global importance. As part of the festival, families will be able to come together to see what those cheering crowds saw 200 years ago. Perhaps, without knowing it, our ancestors witnessed a critical moment in the history of the way we live.
It is with shared pride that I note that this incredible journey began not just in Britain, but in the constituencies of many of my colleagues who are here today. I hope that Members from all parties will join me in celebrating the marking of this incredible piece of our heritage, as well as the rich contribution that the events of 1825 made to our society, our shared culture and the way we live, work and spend our leisure time.
My final message is this: if people are interested in this incredible history, whether they live in the United Kingdom or abroad, they should come and see us. Travel to the north-east for the huge range of events taking place throughout September. Let us make sure that the heritage festival celebrating the 200th anniversary of the incredible Stockton and Darlington railway is an enormous success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I am not going to impose a time limit, but I am going to call the Front-Bench speakers to respond to the debate from 5.10 pm. With half an hour, the four people standing can work out how much time they have.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for introducing the debate so well, and for bringing alive the past 200 years of the railway.
Since steam filled the air on 27 September 1825, as the first passenger rail between Stockton and Darlington ran on that line, rail has transformed the world. It has transformed the economy, our society and livelihoods—lives and leisure—and all that was to follow captured the global imagination. To mark its 150th anniversary, in 1975, the National Railway Museum opened in my city of York: a national museum outside London, fought for by Jennie Lee, the Labour Minister at the time.
In parallel to the museum’s 50th anniversary celebrations, we in York will also be opening the station hall on 26 September. I welcome visitors old and new to see the improvements, the new interpretation in the gallery and the new gallery roof. I thank the Labour Government for all that they have done to support the National Railway Museum. New artefacts, such as the wreath that adorned Queen Victoria’s funeral locomotive, will be on display. There will also be a beautifully restored WHSmith book stall kiosk from Waterloo station, which I am really looking forward to seeing, as my grandfather started his working life selling newspapers at the WHSmith at North Shields station. The old favourite royal trains will also return in their full glory.
I am sure that visitors will want to flock to the National Railway Museum to join the celebrations on the celebratory weekend—on their way, of course, to Shildon, Darlington and Stockton. The National Railway Museum’s sister museum, Locomotion, in Shildon, the world’s first railway town, will also be part of the commemorations. Locomotion will hit its 21st birthday at the same time, and will host the Inspiration train. For those yet to make it to these parts, the Railway 200 Inspiration train will be their destination. It will be travelling throughout the country, led in partnership by the National Railway Museum, as its carriages tell our story of the history of rail, engage all in science with its mobile Wonderlab and spark a flame for people to consider a career on our great railways.
I also want to thank the Labour Government for what is about to come in York. That is, of course, the new gallery. Spades will be going in the ground in January, as part of our ongoing 200, 201 or 202 years of celebration. The revamped museum will tell a far better story of the history of rail—past, present and future—enabling budding engineers to explore their heritage while learning the science behind rail, and all engaging with science, technology, engineering and maths through the Wonderlab.
I would not steal the history of the Stockton to Darlington line, but the revolution that was born there was scaled and exported because of my predecessor George Hudson’s vision for the railways. Two hundred years on, York is the centre of digital and advanced rail, and because of our shared history it is the global centre for the future of rail. Stephenson’s Rocket will soon take pride of place at the National Railway Museum, alongside the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman. Given that we hold such incredible assets in our city, there will be a shared enthusiasm—from young and old, locally and globally—to come to York to the world’s leading rail museum. Of course, we will encourage them to go up the line to the north-east as well.
This is not about just our past, but our future. We must see the modal shift to rail, on which I know the Transport team is working so hard. We need the decarbonisation and the economic power that rail can bring to all our communities. As that happens, we must build that incredible, aspiring industry that we saw in our country 200 years ago and that we will celebrate in York on the weekend of the 26th to the 28th. Five thousand people now work for the future of digital and advanced rail in our city. Our past tells a story of our future. That is why I really welcome the opportunity to celebrate Railway 200.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this wonderful debate. I hope, Mr Stringer, that you will indulge a speech that not only celebrates our transport heritage but takes a look at our transport future.
Some 200 years ago, on 27 September 1825, a small steam locomotive named Locomotion No.1 set off from Shildon, went through Darlington and reached Stockton-on-Tees. What seemed an eccentric experiment at first became the spark that ignited the modern world. That line—the Stockton and Darlington railway—was the first public railway to carry passengers and freight by steam. That journey began on the banks of the Tees; it transformed not only Britain, but every corner of the globe. In a few years the line reached the mouth of the Tees, and within a generation a small farmstead called Middlesbrough, with a population of 25 people, became an industrial giant—“the infant Hercules”, as Gladstone called it.
The town’s first passenger station opened in 1846 and the present station, dating from 1877, has now been restored, its undercroft part of a new heritage quarter. From the 1880s came the great goods yards and sidings: Middlesbrough goods yard, the dockside yards, the Eston and South Bank sidings feeding the furnaces; then South Bank yard, Cargo Fleet sidings and finally Tees yard in Thornaby—the great marshalling hub for Teesside freight.
Here, rail was never just about moving people; it fuelled an industrial revolution. Durham coal fed the network—carried to Stockton and Middlesbrough to power London’s homes, factories and ships. As iron and steelworks rose at South Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar, the railway was their lifeblood. Rails, bridges, engines, ships—the very fabric of the modern world—were forged there and carried by train from that spot. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, having woven Northern Ireland into the debate, was absolutely right: people have to know their own heritage. What I have described brought about the immigration of thousands and thousands of people from Ireland, who came to work in those industries.
The Stockton and Darlington railway was not just a local line, but the first step in a global transformation—the marriage of steam, steel and energy that built the modern age. We on Teesside can say, with great pride, that it all began with us. In celebrating our heritage, I hope that at the end of this month I will be able join the Boulby Flyer, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), as it runs from Middlesbrough to Saltburn—I will give notice of my visit. I may also visit one of the exhibitions planned at Eaglescliffe station, the one I use so regularly, on the original railway’s route.
If the first half of our story is pride, the second half must be honesty. Although our ancestors led the world, our region is today in some respects being left behind. Look at the line that still runs from Darlington, through Middlesbrough, to Saltburn. Nearly two centuries on, it still has not been electrified. Passengers and freight alike rely on ageing diesel trains. While other regions benefit from faster, cleaner and more reliable services, Teesside is stuck with the infrastructure of yesterday, not tomorrow. It is a bitter irony that the birthplace of the railway revolution now finds itself waiting on the platform while others speed ahead. Electrification is not just about convenience. It means efficiency; cutting emissions; freight trains hauling more without choking our air; faster, quieter and more reliable passenger services; and connecting Teesside businesses and communities to a modern rail network worthy of the 21st century.
In 2024, the Tees Valley combined authority announced that it would use part of the £1 billion of funding devolved to it to develop a business case for electrification from Northallerton to Saltburn, but the Conservatives’ record is clear. In 2017, when I was shadow Transport Secretary, they scrapped electrification in Wales, the east midlands and the north-west. Again and again promises are made and then abandoned. That is why, whether it is urged by this House’s Transport Committee, the RMT, the Railway Industry Association or the Campaign for Better Transport, I believe that a Labour Government must deliver a long-term, rolling programme of rail electrification—not piecemeal promises or short-term fixes, but a serious national commitment. At home on Teesside, that must mean electrifying the line from Northallerton and Darlington through to Saltburn.
Two hundred years ago, George Stephenson and Edward Pease had the vision to imagine a future that others thought impossible. They did not wait: they built, they acted, and they changed the world. We owe it to their memory, and to the generations to come, to show the same ambition today, so let us celebrate the courage of 1825 not with nostalgia alone, but with action. Let us put Teesside once again at the forefront of Britain’s future as it was at the forefront of Britain’s past. From Stockton to Darlington and from Middlesbrough to Saltburn, the railway that carried coal and steel now carries our pride, our history and our hope. Let us make sure that it carries our future as well.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is always great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this wonderful and very important debate, for which I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), who secured it. We have heard some great speeches already.
The Stockton and Darlington railway is an incredible part of our regional transport history. As we have heard, it was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. I am thrilled that we are now celebrating 200 years since its first public journey. The international heritage festival taking place across County Durham and Tees Valley is an excellent opportunity to display our region’s contribution not just to the country, but worldwide.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
This summer, Derby celebrated Railway 200 in style, bringing 40,000 people together in just three days to mark the Greatest Gathering, which was the largest collection of new and heritage railway stock ever assembled anywhere in the world and included Locomotion No. 1. From Darlington to Derby, will my hon. Friend acknowledge our incredible volunteers who are working hard in every part of the United Kingdom to mark Railway 200? It has been a roaring success so far, and I am sure it will be for the rest of the year. Does she agree that the celebrations are not just looking at the past, but inspiring the next generation to carry on our great railway heritage into the future?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. He raised very important points. Yes, while looking to the past, it is important to look to the future. He spoke also about the importance of volunteers in our heritage railways across the country. Without those volunteers, those railways would be long gone. He made a very important point in mentioning the volunteers.
Last year in Great Britain, surface rail alone accounted for 9,848—just under 10,000—miles of track and more than 1.6 billion passenger rail journeys, showing its continued significance nationwide. The Government understand the importance of our railways, and they are working harder to create more journeys and to reduce delays. I support their plans to bring our railways finally back into public ownership.
I would like to mention my own constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, which is home to the Bowes railway, which opened just four short months later on 17 January 1826. It will be celebrating its bicentennial next year. The earliest section of the Bowes railway was designed by George Stephenson, who, as we know, also helped to design the Stockton and Darlington railway. The Bowes railway is the world’s only operational preserved standard-gauge cable railway system, which used stationary steam engines and gravity to move coal wagons from the pits in Durham to the River Tyne. It is still there to this day, as the Bowes Railway Museum is proudly in Springwell village in my constituency.
I also want to take this opportunity to discuss the Leamside line—you didn’t think you were going to get away without me mentioning that one, did you, Mr Stringer? It begins at Ferryhill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and passes through Washington, on to Gateshead and South Tyneside to Pelaw. The first section of the Leamside line opened in 1838 and served our communities until it was closed to passengers in 1964, under the Beeching cuts. It was mothballed in the 1990s. As chair of the Leamside line all-party parliamentary group, I have campaigned, with the help of my hon. Friend, to reopen the line and to bring trains to Washington, which is one of the largest towns in the UK without a direct rail link.
I am delighted that, following our Government’s spending review in June, North East Mayor Kim McGuinness has announced that the first sections of the Leamside line will be reopened as part of the Tyne and Wear Metro, linking stations at Pelaw and South Hylton via Washington. That will include three new stations at Follingsby in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) and Washington North and Washington South in my constituency. I will continue to campaign to reopen the full 21-mile line connecting our constituencies, taking pressure off the east coast main line and helping commuters get to employers in my constituency, such as, to name a few, Nissan, BAE systems and Rolls-Royce. There are many more.
Rail continues to be of vital importance as we seek to grow our local economy and look for solutions to climate change. The heritage festival is an incredible opportunity to celebrate our region’s history, as well as the future of our trains, as they continue to serve an essential part of our lives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate.
Today, as colleagues have said, we mark 200 years since the Stockton and Darlington railway opened; it was the first passenger railway in the world, and the Quaker philanthropist Edward Pease, father of the railways, had a slogan for the railway:
“At private risk for public service”.
It was a radical experiment to fund engineer George Stephenson and his 18-year-old son Robert to use a steam engine instead of horses to power Locomotion No. 1, and it worked. As we have heard in this debate, 10,000 people turned out to welcome its launch, and the success of the railway soon spread across Britain and around the world. Goods could move quickly and cheaply, and so could people.
Stockton’s exports and economy grew, and soon the town’s storage staithes could not keep up with the amount of coal, so in the summer of 1828, Edward’s son Joseph started looking for new land. On 2 August 1828, he surveyed the small hamlet of Middlesbrough. He recorded in his diary that he could see the day when
“the bare fields will be covered with a busy multitude, and numerous vessels crowding to the banks denoting a busy seaport”.
He bought the farmland in 1829, with a population of 25, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has just said; over the next 20 years, it would grow to over 7,000. Industrial Teesside was born.
Sadly, 200 years on, our public transport across Teesside is no longer world leading. Our bus routes have been cut back and our trains do not meet the needs of our communities. That is why the Labour Government have given the Tees Valley Mayor a £1 billion Transport for City Regions settlement to start sorting things out.
As part of that work, I would like to see new passenger railways spread across our region again, such as along the Boulby line, which has had a station sitting empty at Brotton since 1960, even though freight still runs three times a day along the line. Previous work by Arup in 2018 and by SYSTRA in 2023, commissioned by Redcar and Cleveland borough council, found that restoring passenger trains to the line would be feasible without substantial investment in infrastructure, and that diverting an existing service from Saltburn to service the villages in Skelton, Brotton and Loftus would represent value for money and be a net generator of revenue for the rail network.
The combined authority has committed £1 million of those TCR funds to a feasibility study, and I hope that the Mayor will do that work—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I say to the hon. Gentleman that the motion that we are considering is relatively narrowly drawn; it is about the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway. I am following his speech and chain of logic but ask him to come back to the motion.
Luke Myer
Thank you, Chair.
As part of the S&DR200 celebrations, the Boulby line is being reopened, so passengers can enjoy that heritage rail, because it is an important part of Teesside’s infrastructure and still services the mines in our region today. With respect, Chair, it is part of the heritage of Teesside’s rail infrastructure, and I would greatly like to see it restored.
There is no reason that our region cannot again lead the world in public transport. Just as we did 200 years ago, we have the ideas and the can-do attitude to take things forward. Let us make that happen; let us get our region back on track once again.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate.
Railways are a hugely important part of our national story, and an important factor in the economic success of Britain and the region that we are discussing today. The development of the Stockton and Darlington railway was one of Britain’s greatest industrial feats. It pioneered the creation of the modern railway system, allowing people to travel faster than before in a carriage that was wonderfully named “Experiment.”
The existence of the Stockton and Darlington railway helped the development of steam trains, including Stephenson’s Locomotion No. 1, which was the first locomotive to travel on the railway. There followed some of the most incredible feats of engineering, including Stephenson’s Rocket, the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard. It is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway that last year—200 years later, and despite all the subsequent technological advancements —Brits took over 1.7 billion railway journeys. It is right that we pay homage to where it all began, on the original Stockton and Darlington railway, which served as a catalyst for a rail revolution across the country.
As we reflect on the legacy of Stockton and Darlington, we must also ensure that rail continues to deliver for passengers in the 21st century. Today, unfortunately, rail passengers do not always receive the service they deserve, after years of failed privatisation. Services are unreliable and subject to cancellations and delays. When they do run, they are often uncomfortably overcrowded. By contrast, when I travel on my local heritage railway, it is never delayed; it is run by volunteers, but always runs on time. The current situation is particularly challenging to accept on the mainline railways, given the fare rises that we all have to put up with. Meanwhile, fare dodging regularly goes unpunished, as Conservative leadership hopefuls are often keen to point out.
The former Conservative Government planned to use this anniversary to encourage people to take up roles in the railway industry, through education, through tourism, and through the celebration of railway workers and enthusiasts. I hope that the current Government will seize on this anniversary as an opportunity to deliver better railways for passengers, with expanded connectivity, particularly to the north of England, which has had a very raw deal over a very long period. I know that, from having travelled on rail in the north of England. But let us face it—on any rail journeys that are not to or from London, we tend to get a poor deal.
The Government must be far more proactive in the sanctioning of those train operators who cannot provide a high-quality service. Of course, some of them will cease to exist when Great British Railways comes fully on stream, but we should not forget—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member heard what I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). If he could stick to the motion before us, I would be grateful; sanctioning current rail operators is not directly relevant to the motion.
Max Wilkinson
Thank you, Mr Stringer. Then I shall skip over my anecdote about the excellent Pullin’s Bakery fruit cake served on Great Western Railway services—I hope colleagues in the north also enjoy such delicacies.
I have spent many hours on heritage railways, and I believe they give us the important points we need to focus on for railways today. The Stockton and Darlington railway that we are discussing today revolutionised our country 200 years ago. Railways still play a central role in our modern economy, but for too long passengers have felt that they are not getting the services they deserve. The best tribute we could pay to George Stephenson and the legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway is to modernise our current infrastructure, bring fares down and expand connectivity. In celebrating 200 years of the Stockton and Darlington railway, let us invoke the spirit of George Stephenson and seek to deliver exactly that.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this debate and for speaking with such knowledge and passion, not only about the Stockton and Darlington railway but about railways more generally and the impact they have had on this country.
The Stockton and Darlington railway was the first step in the great railway invention and expansion that shaped our country and the world. Britain pioneered steam locomotion and railways, and we have heard how George Stephenson set the global standard. Railways in turn powered the industrial revolution by enabling the efficient movement of raw materials, goods and people.
Within just a few years our country had established a railway network that grew throughout the country; what was once a three-day trip to remote areas by horse and cart became, within a few years, a journey of a few hours by train. We take it for granted today in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, but it is hard to overstate just how transformative the railways were in the 19th century—and it all started in Stockton and Darlington.
Beyond the railways’ economic impact, they transformed the social fabric of our country. They opened the countryside to the urban population, offering access to fresh air and green spaces. Rail travel also revolutionised tourism. Affordable fares made trips possible for working-class families, reshaping the character of seaside towns such as those in my constituency on the Isle of Wight.
Heritage railways act as living museums that preserve the rich legacy of our railways, and they will be doing so up and down the country—an essential part of the 200th anniversary celebrations. The central and most important part of that will be the cultural festival in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. While discussing heritage railways, I must mention the contribution of the heritage railway in my constituency, the Isle of Wight steam railway at Havenstreet, which welcomes over 110,000 visitors annually. It is not just a tourist destination; it is an accredited Arts Council England museum and educational charity, employing 35 staff and enriching our local economy—particularly the visitor economy—and our community.
Heritage railways contribute £600 million to the UK economy and welcome 13 million visitors each year. None of that would be possible without the extraordinary contribution of volunteers, and I am sure volunteers will play a very significant role in the upcoming cultural festival. Across the country, thousands of dedicated individuals give their time and expertise not only to restore locomotives and maintain rolling stock, but to guide visitors and passengers. On the Isle of Wight steam railway alone, we have a team of up to 500 volunteers, and it is one of the largest volunteer organisations on the island.
In celebrating the 200th anniversary of our railways, we must do more to remove barriers to volunteers and offer more flexible opportunities that encourage people both young and old to volunteer. Recently, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay identified just such a barrier to volunteering and sought to remove it during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place. An obsolete 1920s law governing the employment of young people has survived in later legislation. It means that, strictly speaking, it is not legal for heritage railways to give volunteering opportunities to anyone under the age of 16. My noble Friend was able to amend the Bill in the other place on a cross-party basis to remove that outdated provision in existing legislation. I hope very much that when the Bill comes back to the Commons, as part of the 200th anniversary celebrations and in that spirit, the Government will allow that amendment to stand.
I close by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and by celebrating the story of Britain’s railways. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its opening was pioneering proof of the role not only of steam, but of railway, as a means of public transport that continues to this day. It is only fitting that we all join in honouring 200 years of innovation, connection and progress.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, I suspect that you will have plenty of time to leave space for the mover of the motion to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I will indeed. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate and shining a light on the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200. The festival is a wonderful celebration of the birth of modern railway in the region, which transformed how the world traded, travelled and communicated.
In September 1825, the first passenger railway journey in the world took place between Stockton and Darlington. News reports at the time spoke of thousands of people lining the tracks to witness this small steam train as it travelled the 27 miles between Shildon, Darlington and Stockton. The journey led to the modern railway as we know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke powerfully about its transformative impact, whether that be the package holiday or modern timekeeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) spoke about the link between industry, in particular coal—something I know very well from my constituency—and the huge role it played in developing local areas. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), rightly highlighted that we take connectivity for granted although it changed the social fabric of our country forever.
In just a few weeks’ time, we will mark 200 years since that momentous day. The Stockton and Darlington 200 festival will stage a re-enactment of that first steam journey, with a replica of Locomotion No.1 travelling along the historical line. The Government are proud to have supported the festival and the wider Railway 200 festival, which has partner events across the country. Railways transformed this country and the world, and it is right that we celebrate our past contribution to rail as well as looking to the future.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the local MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and to the Members from slightly further afield, but present today in Westminster Hall—my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). They have all been working hard together to promote and support this anniversary over many months, and have also successfully campaigned to save the modern Hitachi train factory, which sits next to the original historical line.
The international Stockton and Darlington Railway 200, which celebrates the region’s unique contribution to rail history, has been a great success across 2025 so far. This Government are proud to support the festival, showcasing Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor’s outstanding contribution to the development of the modern railway.
Funding from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and its arm’s length bodies is central to helping communities to celebrate their proud heritage and the contribution they have made to this country. I am pleased to say that the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 festival has benefited from a range of heritage and arts funding sponsors that have helped to support the area in developing the infrastructure and events to commemorate this important anniversary.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund has a long history of supporting the UK’s outstanding rail heritage, and has invested more than £100 million in heritage rail projects since 1994. In 2022, the National Lottery Heritage Fund awarded a grant of more than £3 million to Darlington borough council for its Stockton and Darlington railway project. The five-year project developed the Darlington railway quarter, creating a new railway attraction called Hopetown, which opened in July last year. The brilliant new museum and surrounding heritage buildings celebrate the past, present and future of rail travel engineering genius.
Hopetown was funded by a total investment of more than £35 million, with additional sponsors including Historic England, Arts Council England and the Railway Heritage Fund. I was pleased to see that Hopetown won the Heritage Railway Association Railway 200 special award earlier this year. It is a great example of the power of heritage to revitalise areas. Hopetown, of course, is the original name of that area of Darlington at the time of the industrial boom 200 years ago. I am glad to hear that the project is a great source of pride for my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington; I know it is one of the most significant heritage museums and attractions in the north-east.
Historic England, along with other arm’s length bodies of DCMS, has been heavily involved in supporting the north-east as it approaches the anniversary. In 2018, it established the Stockton and Darlington railway action zone to help to rejuvenate and restore the historical railway, and to realise its potential to become a major heritage attraction and visitor destination in the approach to 2025. Running from 2018 to 2023, with a total investment of more than £2.3 million from Historic England and numerous other sponsors, that fantastic project laid the essential foundations for the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 bicentenary celebrations and the railway line’s longer-term management as a world-class visitor attraction.
On the Railway 200 festival more widely, over the past year, the Government have been working with Network Rail and partners across the country to help to deliver the partner-led initiative that celebrates the 200th anniversary of modern rail. Railway 200 explores how rail shaped Britain and the world. As this Government transform our railway system today, bringing the railways back into public ownership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South spoke about, Railway 200 will also look to the future, encouraging more people to take the train and inviting the next generation of pioneering talent to join the railway industry and become the history makers of tomorrow.
Alongside the fantastic work going into the Stockton and Darlington festival, other railway museums have been supported as part of the Railway 200 festival. The National Rail Museum in York is a key regional sponsored museum, and part of the Science Museum Group. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly paid tribute to Jennie Lee for her campaigning work on that. Events will be taking place across the country, and we heard a really good example from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker).
Much of the Railway 200 activity is being delivered through arm’s length bodies, many of which benefit from Government support. I look forward to the culmination of the bicentenary celebrations in late September, and I know the Rail Minister will join the events in the north-east marking 200 years since the first passenger journey—an historic moment that changed travel forever. I am familiar with the 1920s law that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned; I will reflect his comments to the relevant Department.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor for his personal contribution to railway heritage, and his support for the Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway. I pay tribute to them for their tireless campaigning. I end by putting on record a huge thanks to all the volunteers up and down the country who support heritage railways for all the work they do, as we mark this very important 200-year anniversary.
Alan Strickland
I thank all hon. Members from across the House who took part in the debate today. I thank the Minister for her very generous summary and for acknowledging colleagues who worked so hard on this anniversary, and I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their excellent speeches. It is wonderful to hear that across the country, there is real pride in our railway heritage and in the heritage lines that continue today: the Bowes railway line, the Isle of Wight steam railway and the Boulby line. There is also the Leamside line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has campaigned tirelessly to turn from history to reality.
Andy McDonald
This has been a really interesting exploration of our fantastic rail heritage, and we have celebrated many elements of it. Since his and my part of the world was the birthplace of the railway and we see the advances that have been made over 200 years—that fantastic progress showcased at the National Railway Museum in York—does my hon. Friend share with me an ambition for our part of the world, and the entire country, to make another seismic shift in the advancement of our transport, to be inspired by that heritage experience and to take it forward for the next 100 or 200 years, for the benefit of our people and economy?
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly powerful points. He was quite right to say earlier that the north-east has been a cradle of railway ingenuity for many years, and we want to recapture that spirit. We want to recapture high-quality manufacturing in the area—many of us here have worked hard to save the Hitachi rail factory. The link between the past and our future, a bright future that we need to fight hard for, is incredibly important as shown in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) about how Middlesbrough grew from hamlet to city, thanks to the arrival of rail.
We also heard about the historical link to Carlisle and the important role that the city has played, which shows just how quickly rail spread across the north of England. I am sure we will all be visiting York to see the new gallery and the exciting developments at the National Railway Museum. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made important points about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and the link to the modern world that we can draw from that industrial heritage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) mentioned, Derby has already had an extraordinary festival this year: 40,000 attendees is clearly the number to beat, and we will do our best in the north-east. It is fantastic that this year, and particularly this summer, there have been fantastic festivals around the United Kingdom to celebrate this important part of our history. I thank all hon. Members for taking part in this debate, and say, “See you in the north-east!”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the heritage festival of the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
Written Statement
Less Healthy Food and Drink: Advertising Restrictions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
This Government have set a bold ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and that includes tackling the childhood obesity crisis. As part of this, we committed in our manifesto to implementing advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink on TV and online.
I updated the House on 16 July, when launching a consultation on the draft regulations to provide an explicit exemption for brand advertising from the advertising restrictions. The consultation, which closed on 6 August 2025, reconfirmed the Government’s policy position that brand advertising that does not identify a less healthy food or drink product is out of scope of the restrictions. This was set out in my previous statements to the House and was understood by Parliament during the passage of the primary legislation—the Health and Care Act 2022, which amended the Communications Act 2003. The consultation sought views on the drafting of the regulations to ensure that they are clear and fit for purpose in achieving this.
We have carefully considered the responses, many of which were submitted on behalf of organisations from a range of sectors. The Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport also engaged with stakeholders throughout the consultation period to understand a broad range of views.
I am delighted to inform the House that the Government are today laying before Parliament the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025, and an explanatory memorandum. The Government will also be publishing our response to the consultation on gov.uk.
We have been careful to protect the primary policy objective by ensuring that the regulations set robust and objective criteria to permit only brand advertising that does not identify specific less healthy food or drink products. This means we are being tough on junk food advertising but not pigeon-holing brands as “less healthy”; instead, we are incentivising them to reformulate and promote their healthier products. The regulations will enable the regulators to provide clear guidance on how they will enforce the restrictions. They will also allow industry to invest in advertising campaigns with confidence that they will be compliant.
Laying this legislation today demonstrates our rapid progress towards implementing the advertising restrictions, which will take legal effect on 5 January 2026. As I set out in my previous written ministerial statement—[Official Report, 22 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 51WS.]—we have secured a unique commitment from advertisers and broadcasters, with the support of online platforms, to voluntarily comply with the restrictions from 1 October 2025. We welcome this co-operation.
We will now work closely with Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority as they finalise their implementation guidance. I am delighted that, in taking this action, we are tackling childhood obesity head-on by removing up to 7.2 billion calories from UK children’s diets each year.
[HCWS917]
Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to amend the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989 and thus to ensure that the full suite of maritime legal powers currently available in relation to ships is also available, where applicable, to regulate hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords will wish to know that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered a draft of the order before it was laid and then gave informal pre-laying approval. After the draft order was laid on 1 July, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee in its Thirty-second Report of Session 2024-25. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument not drawn to the special attention of the House in its 32nd Report of Session 2024–25. Prior to this, the MCA responded to preliminary enquiries from the committee’s clerk to the satisfaction of the committee.
The background to the order is that the United Kingdom currently has one commercial hovercraft operation comprising two hovercraft which operate in in-shore waters between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Those hovercraft are regulated as high-speed craft and comply fully with the existing relevant legislation.
The principal piece of legislation governing hovercraft is the Hovercraft Act 1968. The Act enables Orders in Council to be made to bring hovercraft within the scope of any relevant corresponding ship requirements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This is because hovercraft operate at sea in the same way as ships.
Using the powers in the 1968 Act, an order was originally made in 1989—the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989—and this is the basis on which current relevant ship requirements are applied to hovercraft. This new order, if approved, will amend the 1989 order to make it possible in future to apply relevant legislation made in or under the 1995 Act to hovercraft as it already applies to ships.
We intend to make this order now because, for the purpose of extending the current Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations in November 2025, it is necessary to ensure that, in relation to all possible future hovercraft operations, the department will be able to charge fees for regulating hovercraft in the same way that it charges fees for regulating other types of ships. The statutory instrument will contain powers, through the use of provision for ambulatory reference, to ensure that, where necessary, legislation for hovercraft can keep pace with changes to the corresponding legislation covering ships.
This order includes provision relating to safety requirements, pollution prevention measures and inquiries and investigations into ship casualties, ensuring that hovercraft will remain subject to the same modern regulatory standards as ships where this is necessary. This supports consistency, safety, the protection of the marine environment and growth across maritime operations. The order also updates some provision in the existing 1989 order to bring it up to current drafting standards.
Although the department considers that there is no gap in legal powers in respect of the existing hovercraft operation in the United Kingdom because that operation is regulated under the legislation governing high-speed craft, the department nevertheless acknowledges that the existing 1989 order has fallen behind in its alignment with current regulations for ships and considers it appropriate to take steps to resolve this. This order will ensure that the department’s ability properly to regulate future hovercraft operations in the United Kingdom is not impeded by regulations designed for a previous generation of craft.
Since the existing 1989 order was made, it has been amended twice to align it more closely with requirements for ships. As well as introducing the power to enable the department to charge fees fully in line with the fees structure for ships, this order, if approved, will also update provisions for safety regulations and casualty investigations. Notably, the order will also update the pollution prevention provisions when it comes to the availability of powers for the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by sewage and garbage, oil, liquid chemicals, dangerous goods, harmful substances and air emissions.
The order also makes specific provision to apply the ambulatory reference powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. This will mean that, where there is provision in regulations for ambulatory reference to ship requirements, and where those ship requirements are applied to hovercraft by this order, the ambulatory reference provision will also cover those requirements as they apply to hovercraft. This will, in turn, ensure that the relevant legislation for hovercraft will keep pace with international standards in the same way as it does for ships, ensuring that safety and pollution prevention standards are maintained and that there is a level playing field for UK industry and international competitors.
Before concluding, I would like to mention two further points. There was no public consultation, simply because this order does not by itself impose requirements on the public or businesses. Similarly, this order does not represent a change in policy but merely ensures that all relevant existing maritime powers for ships are also available for hovercraft in future.
In conclusion, I have highlighted the importance of this Order in Council in ensuring that hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom are subject to the same regulatory regime as ships and that the department has appropriate powers to ensure compliance with relevant safety and pollution prevention standards. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I shall intervene reasonably briefly on this matter and, in doing so, I declare my interest not as someone who has captained or flown a hovercraft but as a holder of a private pilot’s licence in aviation. In probing this matter, I first refer to the definition of a hovercraft, not from a maritime document but from Aviation World, which says:
“A hovercraft is a type of vehicle that is designed to travel over a variety of surfaces, including land, water, and ice, using a cushion of air. The vehicle is propelled by one or more fans, which create an air flow that lifts the hovercraft off the ground and allows it to ‘float’ on the surface”.
“One of the key features of a hovercraft is its versatility. Unlike boats, which are limited to water, and cars, which are limited to roads, a hovercraft can travel over a wide range of terrains”—
this is getting to my point—
“including mud, sand, grass, and even shallow water. This makes them ideal for rescue operations, transportation in marshy or wetland areas and for military uses”.
The Minister has rightly mentioned that, at the present time, there is very limited commercial use of hovercraft in this country. He referred to the Solent, where hovercraft are in use, but I point out to him that there is considerable and increasing use of hovercraft on the land and in the military, and their uses are always being looked at and developed. I am proud to say that this was a design patented by a UK citizen, Christopher Cockerell, in 1955. For a long time, we developed the commercial use of these craft, particularly in the channel and elsewhere. The world did not directly follow us in that way, but it then started to look at alternative uses.
I come to the points of probing that I would like to make to the Minister. First, these are inevitably maritime regulations. In fact, looking at the commercial use of hovercraft, I assume that they are always of the feminine gender, because they follow ships and boats, which tend to have that designation—it is not quite the same with the Army, which I do not think would do that. I would like a little explanation on the following. We are making maritime law apply to the use of hovercraft, yet the use of hovercraft in a maritime setting is diminishing while their use across land and other surfaces is increasing. Can the Minister help me understand how the regulations apply to hovercraft that are not on the sea or water?
Also, in relation to the issues he mentioned of pollution, casualties and safety requirements, what measures are there to protect people? What measures are there in relation to pollution in the environmental setting as they relate to these vehicles or crafts?
Finally, on insurance, it is interesting that in the maritime setting ships tend to be insured through Lloyd’s Register and tend to be insured specifically on a maritime basis. Is the insurance of hovercraft required to fit in with maritime law in this way, or is it covered in some other manner?
I hope that my short contribution has not confused anybody, but it seems to me that these narrower provisions before us today, which are drafted on a maritime basis, do not necessarily reflect the reality of the use of this wonderful invention of Christoper Cockerell.
Lord Greenway (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, on which I have no complaint— I think it is all very sensible, but I would say that, as a mariner. Following on from what the noble Lord who has just spoken said, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this movement of hovercraft from sea to land. The RNLI already uses small hovercraft for dealing with waters where the tide goes out a long way and there are a lot of mudflats, where they find them very useful.
However, in terms of general passenger carriage, as the Minister referred to, the service between Southsea and Ryde is in fact the last all-year-round service in the world that uses hovercraft for carrying passengers. In some ways, it is very welcome that it uses hovercraft—as we have heard, invented by Christopher Cockerell—but it is also rather sad because, in many ways, the hovercraft was a brief flash in the pan in maritime history. It developed quite considerably from small hovercraft, such as the SRN6, up to the SRN4, which was quite a large hovercraft—in fact, it was even lengthened for service across the channel from Dover to Calais.
However, hovercraft were not without their problems, and in fact there were at least two fatal accidents. One of the smaller SRN hovercraft flipped over in a gale just off Southsea and nine people were drowned. One of the larger ones, also in a gale, hit the breakwater coming into Dover, which put a 60-foot gash in its side, and a number of people fell out, four of whom, sadly, were pronounced dead.
The hovercraft was, in many ways, an interesting and wonderful invention, but I am afraid that it was overtaken, first, by the huge fuel-price hikes in the 1960s and 1970s and, then, of course, by the introduction of the Channel Tunnel, which really killed off the larger hovercraft that crossed the channel. They went out of action in the year 2000.
As I said, I have no complaints about this order, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on retaining his place in the recent reshuffle.
Following my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate’s speech, which I thought was fascinating, it may be that, as a result of that speech and the points made by him and, to some extent, by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the Minister might now prefer to withdraw this statutory instrument on the grounds that the department has probably miscategorised hovercraft as properly falling under maritime law and come back with an instrument that acknowledges the richer context in which hovercraft are increasingly used and—if we are to believe my noble friend and the noble Lord, who have some expertise—are likely to be increasingly used, so that the statutory instrument can be pertinent, robust and what is called future-proof. If so, we would completely understand why the Minister would wish to withdraw the instrument and we would not object to its withdrawal.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring our maritime legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, spoke eloquently about the varied use of hovercraft other than in the circumstances in which they are currently principally used for marine purposes. My assurance is that these regulations cover the use of hovercraft in the sea and near the sea; the use of them on land is outside the scope of this legislation. I will write to him further about what I can tell him about the use of hovercraft on land. Of course, we have to, and should, take proper account of their use in commercial service in the remaining service within which they operate. It is important, therefore, that the regulations are up to date. The intention is to keep them up to date in order that that service can continue for as long as possible.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us a very clear understanding of the history of hovercraft. He referred to two serious accidents, which is, of course, the reason why these regulations should be kept up to date and that the hovercraft in service that the public are currently using are properly regulated.
We do not intend to withdraw the order, because it is necessary to ensure that we have continuous and proper regulation of hovercraft. This order is the means of doing that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked about the fee calculation. The fees are calculated at a cost recovery level. There are no new fees or increases to fees. There would be full consultation before there were to be any new or increased fees. I believe that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
As I said, there was no consultation because there was no material difference, but the department is in constant discussion with the operators of the remaining hovercraft service—principally, as noble Lords may know, about the controversy over the level and quality of all services to the Isle of Wight.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister mid flow. He very kindly suggested that he would write to me. I know that the maritime regulations are narrow, as he said, in that, according to this, they cover the operation of the hovercraft only on the sea or, presumably, on water. But a lot of the hovercraft now deployed, particularly military and others, combine running on water, land, across mud and across ice. That is the whole joy of the air cushion. They do not run on roads, so we cannot talk about Road Traffic Acts or anything like that. It is of great interest to me to know how these regulations are applied, particularly in a multi-use case such as that or, indeed, where they never go near water. That is what I am puzzled about. I realise that this measure is not about that, and I do not want to spoil it like that, but if the Minister could ask officials and so on to write to me about that, I would be so grateful.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a valued point, and I will write to him fully. The intention of this order is only to cope with their maritime use and the marginal use of the slipway at each side of the Solent. I will write to the noble Lord separately about his valuable point, because it is clear that some regulation ought to apply. But I am assured that the intention of the order is to regulate these craft in respect of their use on and absolutely near the sea, on the slipways. So I completely understand his point. I will write to him as fully as I am able about what applies in the circumstances in which those craft are used on land.
Suffice it to say that, although safety and other environmental protections are absolutely needed, the primary intention of the order is to continue to regulate hovercraft in public service—on the remaining public service in which they are used—in an up-to-date manner. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to two serious incidents over the course of the years, and I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that it is absolutely essential that the regulations are kept in order so that, were there to be any such incident, it would be properly dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised the question of ambulatory reference. I am not able to tell him whether this applies anywhere else, but I handily have some remarks about ambulatory reference in this particular circumstance. It is a reference in domestic legislation to an international instrument that is interpreted as a reference to the international instrument as modified from time to time and not simply the version of the instrument that exists at the time that the domestic legislation is made.
The Deregulation Act 2015 gave a power, through an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 by inserting new Section 306A, to include ambulatory references in domestic maritime legislation implementing international agreements—namely, ones not derived from the European Union. Using ambulatory references in merchant shipping legislation is a useful means of ensuring that secondary legislation gives full effect to future technical amendments to existing international maritime conventions that are adopted by the International Maritime Organization—IMO—and that the UK has already implemented. These include, but are not limited to, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973. These conventions are regularly updated.
It is to the benefit of the UK shipping industry to have a mechanism whereby domestic shipping legislation can remain up to date with the international standards. It maintains an international level playing field and ensures that UK shipping complies with the requirements of any other International Maritime Organization member state to which that UK shipping travels.
Although ambulatory reference provision in domestic law allows future amendments to international conventions to be incorporated automatically into domestic law, the United Kingdom will nevertheless be able to continue to scrutinise and, if necessary, object to proposed changes in the international arena in the International Maritime Organization and assess their impact well before any amendment is due to come into force, which will inform decision-making.
United Kingdom industry and worker stakeholders will also be involved at the stage that the United Kingdom negotiating strategy is formulated, and they will be able to influence it. Some principal stakeholders representing industry and workers are affiliated to non-government international organisations, which have been granted consultative status at the IMO and make substantial contributions to the work of the IMO, contributing sector knowledge, insight and expertise.
If an amendment is objected to by the United Kingdom, it will come into force internationally. The Secretary of State will make amending secondary legislation to prevent that amendment coming into force domestically. An amendment that is accepted will, before coming into force in UK law, be publicised by means of a parliamentary Statement to both Houses of Parliament and the subject of guidance issued by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would not want the UK’s shipping industry to be burdened by the failure to comply with the IMO. I believe that the statement I made in respect of ambulatory reference deals with the necessary scrutiny, both to amendments that are objected to by the United Kingdom and to those that are accepted.
I have attempted, at least, to deal with the points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. This order is necessary to ensure that hovercraft remain subject to the same safety and pollution prevention requirements as ships, where applicable. It strengthens our maritime regulatory regime and ensures consistency across vessel types. I will write to the noble Lord on the subject that he requests further information on—I am very happy to do so. I hope that noble Lords have found this informative and that they will join me in supporting these measures.
Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 1 July 2025.
Today is Back British Farming Day, and this instrument seeks to do just that: back our free-range poultry meat producers. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during outbreaks of disease, such as avian influenza, which restrict the access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria upon which the “free range” marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.
Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry that, in all cases, lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. This was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25. So it will be important for the industry that this statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.
Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to outbreaks of disease such as avian influenza, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as “free range” for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After this, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor reared.
In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes together with the Scottish Government. Some 79% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor Framework, any changes to EU legislation will also apply to Northern Ireland, when introduced.
When a mandatory housing measure is imposed on poultry producers, this is to safeguard the welfare of the birds, which must be our primary concern. However, we also recognise that the current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to re-label free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden on producers. This is primarily related to the higher operating costs that continue to be incurred to maintain their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are temporarily housed indoors. This is also combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.
This statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the European Union introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of this statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the European Union and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of this derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.
We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 3 September 2025 to amend its domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate that the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation.
The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports and by protecting the value of its products without compromising the high welfare and food safety standards expected by UK consumers and our trading partners. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.
We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.
On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.
Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that the statutory instrument will not lead to confusion or reduce confidence in what “free range” genuinely means—I note the examples from the polling that the Minister used in her introductory remarks—for so many of our consumers who today wish, in increasing numbers, to make ethical choices? Meeting public expectations and reflecting farm realities requires transparency. The reputation of “free range” must remain as a guarantee of higher welfare, not merely a technicality. Also, how will the Government audit compliance, ensure that labelling reflects actual living standards and work with producers and consumer groups to uphold these robust standards?
We support these regulations; we are looking at the small print, but we are very much in support of this statutory instrument when it comes to providing detailed reassurances on animal welfare and consumer confidence. On Back British Farming Day, we stand with our farmers while demanding the highest standards for animals, rural communities and our food security system. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I am—indeed, the whole Committee will be delighted—that the noble Baroness is still in her place as a Defra Minister. We have continuity Defra, and that needs to be said.
But may I also say how sad I was to see that Daniel Zeichner has been brutally chopped? He was a good Minister doing a good job. He had been shadow Minister since 2020 and was a Minister for a year, and then was chopped for no good reason. One idiotic report in the press said that he had been chopped because of the tax on farmers. I think they got the wrong target there, since the Secretary of State’s replacement was in the Treasury, which imposed the tax. The reports said that the Secretary of State had been “promoted” away from Defra, diminishing its importance. What does Defra do? It is the only the department that looks after our food, farming, fishing and trees, and looks after the quality of our water, rivers, streams and the air we breathe. Yet the media regard that as less important than going to a department that cannot build houses unless it deals with ghastly local government.
I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the necessity of this SI. The Official Opposition wholeheartedly support it for the same reasons set out fully by the Minister. So long as avian influenza is a threat to all flocks in the UK, in addition to the devastation among wild birds, the only precaution is to keep poultry inside. That is unfortunate, but there is no other way.
As the Minister explained, that means that free-range poultry would be kept inside as well and lose the designation “free range” if it is kept inside for more than 12 weeks. However, that would not apply to Europe, which operates under different rules at the moment. Thus, without this SI change, English producers would find their poultry meat marketed as “indoor bred” but similar meat from Europe could be labelled “free range”. Clearly, that would be damaging to the UK poultry sector, so this is necessary to maintain a level playing field.
As the Defra Explanatory Note points out, there is very little free-range chicken meat at the moment. At this time of year, the main free-range poultry are turkeys, geese and ducks, and it would be wrong to damage our producers by labelling them “indoor bred” while letting foreign imports be classed as “free range”. For those reasons, we will support the SI.
However, I flag up the same point that I made in the debate on free-range eggs: we cannot go on like this indefinitely. For impeccable reasons, we are misleading consumers, even though I think the products need a label stating that they have been kept inside. I am not sure about that, so perhaps the Minister will clarify in her winding-up speech whether, in relation to products that have been kept inside, there is an explanation for how they comply with “free range”. I repeat that, ever since my time in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990, I have felt that the definition of “free range” is misleading. Yes, chickens must have access to outdoors for half their lives, but they rarely go out of the little hatch and stay inside most of the time. However, now is not the time or occasion for me to start a war with the British poultry producers.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I know it has not been a very long debate, but I thank noble Lords for their support, because this is an important instrument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked whether or not animal welfare would be diluted by it. The answer is: absolutely not. Animal welfare legislation continues to apply even though the birds are being housed. Keepers are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their birds, but we have good legislation in this country to ensure high animal welfare standards. Guidance for all bird-keepers on biosecurity and preventing welfare impacts on poultry has been published by Defra and is available on the avian influenza pages on the Government’s website.
On the free-range criteria, the criteria on which designation of the “free range” special marketing term is granted are outlined in Article 11 and Annexe V of the poultry meat market standards regulations. In summary, for poultry to be regarded as “free range”, the stocking rate in the house and the age at slaughter have to follow detailed requirements. To take chickens for example, the stocking rate per square metre of floor space must not exceed 15 birds and a live weight of 25 kilograms or less, and the age of slaughter must be 56 days or later. Continuous daytime access must also be provided to open-air runs that are covered by certain amounts of vegetation—for example, 4 square metres per turkey or goose. During mandatory housing measures, access to the open-air runs only will be restricted; all the other free-range criteria will continue to apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about enforcement. Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on free-range poultry producers. Local authorities also conduct checks at retail level. These inspections will ensure that only free-range poultry meat is labelled as free range during mandatory housing measures. Previously, retailers have put up clear signage to explain the conditions that are being met under the new arrangements.
Regarding consumer information and consumer confidence, we issue national, local and trade press releases to make sure that the latest information is communicated through the media. We also post the latest advice, key messages and situational updates on both the Defra and APHA social media channels. Working with different industry groups, the information is then distributed through those industry group members. In addition, you can also subscribe to APHA’s free animal disease alert service for any latest information on situations in Great Britain.
On the EU, there should not be a problem. As I mentioned in my introductory speech, the EU has confirmed that it is also intending to proceed with the removal of the 12-week derogation. Once Scotland and Wales have also come into line, because Northern Ireland is impacted by EU legislation, that should mean that we are all on the same page, which would be very helpful for trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the avian influenza aspect and the impact on birds. I am sure he is aware that the housing measures are brought in to reduce the risk that poultry and captive birds will come into contact with wild birds, because avian influenza is often passed on through wild bird populations. It is also not just about the bird itself but the wild bird faeces as well, which can also transmit the disease. Then, even when the birds are housed there is also a risk of infection, so this must be coupled with good biosecurity.
We do not want to see birds slaughtered so we are working with producers, the NFU and others on the importance of biosecurity. Good biosecurity—disinfecting clothing and equipment after use, repairing building defects such as holes in the roof, which unfortunately is often one way that wild birds can get in, and keeping good records, and so on and so forth—is one way that producers can reduce the impact. Obviously, we do not want to slaughter birds. I think we have a better understanding of avian influenza now than we did a few years ago; it is not going to go away.
It is also worth noting that, although the vaccination of poultry and captive birds against avian influenza is not currently permitted, and currently it is unlikely to provide full protection because of the kind of strains that we have at the moment, we are still looking at this issue. We are not there yet. We know that vaccination can help reduce mortality, but we are also concerned that despite that, they could still transmit the disease to other birds. So we are looking at that. There is more work happening on the longer-term view on tackling avian influenza but currently we are not there. Coming back to consumers and trading, we also know that some of our trading partners will not accept vaccination at present.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their support of the need for this instrument. As I outlined in my opening speech, the introduction of the mandatory housing measure is to protect the welfare of our poultry. Removing the derogation will support industry by reducing those financial pressures and will get a level playing field with trading partners, including the European Union, as they also move in the same direction. We have to do our part to support our poultry industry. I think I have answered all the questions, but I will check Hansard just to make sure. I beg to move.
Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to these amendments I will also speak to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 and the Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
These instruments form part of the Government’s secondary legislation programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act. The 2023 Act delivers the most significant reform to Companies House in over 180 years. It is central to the Government’s efforts to combat economic crime, improve corporate transparency and increase trust in the UK’s business environment. Since the 2023 Act, Companies House has made great progress in implementing the reforms, including removing false and misleading data. For example, from 4 March 2024 to 31 July 2025, Companies House removed something like 113,300 registered office addresses, 88,000 officer addresses and 71,000 PSC addresses.
In April this year, Companies House launched its identity verification service. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have successfully verified their identities. This is a major milestone and ensures that customers and Companies House are ready for mandatory identity verification in November this year, a central pillar of our reforms. These regulations will support the delivery of identity verification, as well as other technical reforms relating to the people with significant control—PSC—framework.
I will briefly speak to each instrument in turn. The Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 apply many of the reforms to companies contained in the 2023 Act to limited liability partnerships, also known as LLPs. Specifically, they introduce identity verification for LLP members and PSCs, prohibit disqualified directors from acting as an LLP member, and remove the requirement for LLPs to keep their own “local” registers of members and PSCs. Extending company reforms to LLPs will align requirements across corporate entities. This will reduce opportunities for misuse by criminals and ensure that LLPs, and those doing business with LLPs, benefit from a more transparent and reliable business environment.
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 is a largely technical instrument that helps to underpin the smooth implementation of key elements of the 2023 Act. It makes necessary consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation following the removal of the requirement for companies and other entities to retain their own local registers of directors, secretaries and PSCs. Instead, there will be one central register at Companies House. This will make life easier for users of the register, as they will know that the centralised register held by Companies House is the definitive version.
The instrument also introduces provision to support the rollout of identity verification through the mandation of unique identifiers. These codes are generated for each verified individual and will be used to prove an individual’s verified identity status. Without this instrument, crucial parts of the Companies House reform package would not be able to operate as needed. This instrument ensures consistency across the legislative framework and prevents references to repealed provisions from persisting in law.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on retaining his position after the recent reshuffle of the Cabinet.
Despite recent reforms of Companies House, several issues remain unaddressed and the legislation in front of us does not really deal with them. I will illustrate my concerns with three pieces of empirical evidence. I can do more, but I do not have time.
The first concern is exemplified by a company called Herran Finance plc, which is company number 12370122 at Companies House. It was incorporated on 18 December 2019, with issued share capital, so its accounts claim, of £59,892,205. Its purpose is to provide financial services. This is a dormant company. It has never traded. The rudimentary accounts filed at Companies House show that it had cash in hand and at bank on 31 December of—guess what—£59,892,205. Amazingly, exactly the same amount was held a year later when the accounts for the following year were filed on 12 August 2022.
The company is engaged in banking, though it does not have the word “bank” in its name, which, as we know, is reserved for certain types of organisations. Its name does not appear on the FCA list of authorised firms. None of its directors is on the FCA list of authorised individuals. No person of significant control statement could be found at Companies House. The company’s page at Companies House noted on 10 October 2023:
“Compulsory strike-off action has been suspended”.
There has been no update since then. That is, nearly two years have elapsed.
This is a fake company that may have duped people. It actually has a website and its address is herran.co.uk, which has all the hallmarks of a scam. It describes itself as
“the 10th oldest bank in the country”
and says that deposits with it are safe because they are insured with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation —yes, a UK-based bank covered by US depositor protection. If anyone needed a sign of fraud, there it is. The website is an exact clone of a genuine bank.
Some five years after the incorporation of this organisation, no attempt has been made by Companies House to see that the accounts are genuine or that the company is licensed to carry out the described activities. Can the Minister explain who checks whether a fake bank has been incorporated at Companies House and how often these checks are made? Who are they reported to?
Directors of Herran provide a UK address but do not appear to live there. Companies House does not require proof of address when you first create a company. Anybody’s address can be used and, paradoxically, the injured party must provide evidence of the proof of address to correct data held at Companies House—but crooks do not have to. Can the Minister explain why no authentic proof of address is needed to register a company at Companies House?
Does the Minister agree that the filing of false information at Companies House should be a criminal offence? Why is that not already the case? What is the Government’s plan to deal with this? We have a lot of debates around immigration, but fake companies can be used to secure work visas. Can the Minister tell the House how many work visas have been secured by false companies? How do the Government know how many have been issued? Is there any check at any time? That is my first piece of evidence.
My second piece of evidence is that numerous fake banks are routinely registered at Companies House. Examples include “CITIC Limited”, “The Toronto Dominion Ltd”, “JPMorgan Chase Ltd” and “Goldman Sachs Finance Ltd”, and all these had a common director: a person named Barbarat Giuseppee, who claims to be an Italian living in France. The address given is probably non-existent, and the person probably does not exist either. The same Giuseppee currently holds seven company directorships according to Companies House. Yet nobody has bothered or cross-checked; nobody seems to be doing any job in tackling the crooks.
No amount of identity verification can confirm that a foreign national forming a UK company is genuine, as the UK does not have access to the passport or birth certificate databases of other countries. Even if a genuine foreign national is caught in illicit practices, UK law cannot be enforced on any person living in another country. Around 900,000 UK-registered companies do not have a UK director. Evidence shows that a company with only foreign directors is 17 times more likely to show signs of fraud, yet nobody has bothered to deal with this particular problem.
Genuine companies are not informed by Companies House or anybody else of the existence of fake companies abusing their name. As and when they discover this, they are left to incur legal costs out of their own pocket to fight fraudsters. Can the Minister explain why Companies House registers blatantly fake companies? Does he agree that we need a law requiring all UK-registered companies to have at least one UK citizen as a director? That way, at least we would know whom exactly to hold to account.
My third piece of evidence relates to a law firm that was shut down in October 2023. The name of the firm is Axiom Ince Ltd and it was closed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Some £64 million of clients’ money was missing. Unaudited accounts for the year to 31 March 2022 were filed at Companies House on 7 February 2023. They were not audited because directors claimed that the company was a small company. It was not, because it did not satisfy the requirements of the Companies Act definition.
An accountancy firm named Adrian C Mansbridge & Co. issued an accountants’ report and went along with the directors’ fiction—for a fee, of course. Subsequently, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales fined the firm the puny sum of £2,100 and recovered the disciplinary costs of £2,200. The ICAEW keeps the fines to swell its coffers. The whole thing is a racket. Accountancy trade associations make money by licensing accountants and auditors and then profit again from their misdemeanours.
Companies House never checks accounts to see whether any of the audit exemptions claimed are appropriate. Can the Minister explain who checks to ensure that the accounting and auditing exemption requirements are not abused? He cannot say that it is up to the directors, because they are party to the wrongdoing, and he cannot say it is up to the auditors and accountants, because they are party to the wrongdoing as well.
So, currently, there is no central enforcer of company law, and the deregulatory zeal in political circles at the moment is unlikely to deliver the required transparency or freedom regarding economic crime, which is what the Minister said the legislation in front of us will deliver. I look forward to his response.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is good to hear from him on the progress Companies House is making in cleaning up the register and the process of verification, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has just demonstrated so clearly, it is a work in progress.
The Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025 are fine so far as they go, but they still leave it far too easy for persons with significant control to disguise themselves and, therefore, not be disclosed on the register as they should be. We discussed this loophole at some length during the passing of what the noble Lord called the 2023 Act. It relates to the use of undisclosed nominee share- holders.
During the process of passing the Act, this House passed an amendment on Report that would have required shareholders holding 5% or more to declare whether they are holding those shares on behalf of another person. That amendment was ultimately dropped during ping-pong after a compromise was reached with the then Government that inserted into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to regulate to strengthen the rules around nominees’ shareholdings.
A PSC has an obligation to state that they are a PSC, but a dishonest actor would not do so. The problem we have is that the onus on reporting PSCs falls to the company, and the obligations on the company under the statutory guidance are quite weak. The statutory guidance says that the company should simply scan its share register and identify any shareholders who hold 25% or more. It is easy therefore for a PSC who wishes to hide their identity to structure their holdings via a number of shareholdings below that 25% threshold. For example, five holdings at 20% would give 100% control.
All the dishonest actor has to do to hide that control is find five willing people who are prepared to have their name on the shareholder register and hold shares on behalf of the dishonest actor as nominees. There is no comeback for those nominees. They have no obligation to disclose the nominee arrangement unless the company actively asks them to, which it does not have to do if the shareholding is below 25%. So the company could quite legitimately say that it had followed the guidelines and state that it does not have a PSC because it could not see any shareholders above the 25% threshold.
A whole industry of nominee companies has grown up, as you can see if you google “nominee shareholders”. If the Minister has not done that, I urge him to take a look. Although there are perfectly reasonable uses for nominee shareholdings, it is fair to say that most of the nominee companies make it pretty clear on their websites that the primary purpose is simply to hide the beneficial ownership of the shareholding, which they will do for just £200 a year. Very few of them point out the PSC rules. Forcing those nominees to lie on the record to hide the identity of the beneficial owner would, at the very least, concentrate their minds and make it much harder for a dishonest PSC to find nominees prepared to hide their identity.
My questions for the Minister are as follows. What analysis have the Government done on this since the Act was passed? Does he recognise the issue? Is there any plan to use the powers that were inserted into the Act during ping-pong to deal with it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am delighted to be able to welcome the Minister back to his place. I should have done so earlier, in the Chamber, but I am very pleased to see him there. I am grateful to him for introducing these three important instruments and for so clearly setting out the Government’s rationale. For the record, I should probably declare that I have been a member of an LLP, but I am not any more. Together, these instruments continue the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, with the shared objective of enhancing transparency, reducing fraud and strengthening the integrity of the UK’s corporate environment. For the record, I should say that I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It is very good to hear the progress being made with regard to Companies House. We will come back to that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate: my noble friend Lord Sikka, and the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe. These regulations are another step in the delivery of the Companies House reform programme and are critical in ensuring that it operates effectively. So I really do thank all noble Lords for their questions. I will respond to as many as possible and I will check Hansard to see whether I have answered all of them. If I have not, I will obviously write to noble Lords.
I will address my noble friend Lord Sikka’s forensic look at fake banks, late filing offences and all that. I will try to answer as many of his questions as possible. Regarding fake banks and fake filing offences, Companies House has new powers to query and remove false information. As I said earlier, from March 2024 to June 2025 it prevented some 14,000 suspicious filings. The regulation of banks is for the Financial Conduct Authority, as the noble Lord knows. Companies House has implemented checks on incorporation to prevent companies forming where they do not have regulatory approval to operate as a bank. It continues to work with the FCA on this issue. The filing of false information with Companies House is a serious criminal offence, and those who have done so will have the full weight of the law thrown at them. There is a basic offence of filing without reasonable excuse and an aggravated offence of filing knowingly, so it is a very serious thing.
My noble friend Lord Sikka asked about overseas persons and whether there are any identification checks. Companies House will be able to perform robust ID checks on overseas individuals via the Government’s One Login system, which is now operating. If noble Lords have not had a chance to look at it, I encourage them to do so. Before I was in government, I personally managed to get a One Login set up—it is very easy to register and does not take more than 10 minutes to verify yourself.
If an individual cannot verify their identity, they will not be able to incorporate a company or act as a director. Existing companies will be unable to file a confirmation statement, and this will lead to a strike-off. From November, all filings will have to have verification, and this will be rolled out over the next few months to ensure that, for every single confirmation filing, the people filing it will be verified. They can either do it themselves or they can do it via the ACSP.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his question and his contribution, during the passage of the Act, on nominee shareholders. I will go through our position as far as they are concerned. The Government are aware of the misuse of nominee arrangements, including to avoid disclosure under the people with significant control regime. Work is ongoing with stakeholders to determine the scale of this issue, and the ECCTA provides the power to make regulations to enable a company to find out who its PSCs are in cases where shares are held by a nominee. The Government are wary of imposing disproportionate burdens on legitimate businesses and investors. So, before making any regulations, it is right that the Government work with relevant stakeholders to ensure that burdens can be targeted effectively. In the meantime, the Companies House intelligence hub will use data science to identify threats of economic crime on the register, including the threat posed by agents facilitating the criminal activity of others. Companies House will make this intelligence available to partners such as law enforcement and supervisory bodies.
In 2024-25, the average number of shareholders per company was something like 2.1 shareholders per company, and the average number of PSCs per company is something close to about 1.2, so it is actually quite small. But we still need to get to the bottom of this to see how widely it is misused. This is in line with expectations as the vast majority of companies are law-abiding SMEs.
My officials have been in touch with other countries to learn from their experience in the nominee shareholders’ space. Among others, this includes Singapore. In Singapore, companies are required to keep a register of their nominee shareholders containing the particulars of all their nominators. My officials will continue this engagement as they work better to understand the scale of the issue, as I said earlier, and the cost and benefits of the new nominee shareholders requirement. It is important to this Government that any reforms are proportionate and workable.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about acting as a member of an LLP, the offence of acting as a member without being verified is explicitly defined. If one individual performs the functions of a member—that is, a director—or actions that relate to the running of an LLP, they are likely to be acting as a member. So IDV will apply to both members who subscribed their names to incorporation documents equivalent to the director of a limited company and ordinary members with lesser responsibilities, usually set out in LLP’s own members’ agreement. Obviously I will speak to officials, and if my answer to the noble Lord’s question is still not detailed, I will ensure that a letter will be sent to him.
On the point about limited partnerships, which I think the noble Lord asked about, Companies House is currently looking at it. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there are something like 60,000 limited partnerships on record, and Companies House is trying to clean this up to see how many of these limited partnerships are still active. So, over the next few months, it will clean it up, and those that have not filed confirmation statements and all that will be written off. We recognise that there is a need for limited partnerships in respect of investment trusts, private equity, and so on, so we need to ensure that they are properly regulated as well.
Regarding identity and corporate LLP members, the Government will be reviewing which individuals will be required to identify where a position is held by a corporate entity and not an individual. So we are working on that, and I hope we will be able to inform the House when it is done.
I want to conclude by reminding Peers of the importance of these reforms. These regulations are necessary to make the UK a safer and more transparent place to do business. I commend these measures to the House.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025.
Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I begin on the instrument, I need to declare an interest for this piece of business. My daughter works for Settle housing association.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on this issue. I know she cared about it as much as I do and worked very hard in the department when she was there to make sure that this piece of work came forward. I would like to express my thanks to her for that.
In speaking to the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, known as Awaab’s law, I will also speak to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. The Government are clear that homes must be safe. We are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the quality of social housing, making sure that tenants feel safe and that landlords have clarity on requirements. These regulations are an important step.
I begin with Awaab’s law. Awaab Ishak was just two when he died in December 2020 due to prolonged mould exposure in his family home. Awaab’s death was tragic. There is nothing more painful than losing a child. How much more pain his parents must have knowing that, if they had been listened to and their social landlord had acted responsibly, their son’s death could have been avoided. Awaab’s parents repeatedly raised concerns, and their social landlord failed to act. His parents have campaigned tirelessly since then, and I want to thank them sincerely. Awaab’s law will make sure that tenants’ complaints are taken seriously and that landlords respond in a timely manner with empathy, dignity and respect. It is my sincere hope that it will build trust between landlords and tenants. For too long, tenants’ complaints about damp and mould have been treated at best with delay and failure to act and, at worst, by pushing the blame back at tenants, often using the term “lifestyle issues”—a term I banned at my council. We must do better.
The regulations imply terms into tenancy agreements requiring social landlords to investigate and remedy significant damp and mould and emergency hazards within set timeframes. Significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days, with written summaries sent to tenants in three days and action taken in five. Emergency hazards must be made safe within 24 hours. If these timescales cannot be met, landlords must provide suitable alternative accommodation until it is safe to return. Additional works to prevent hazards from recurring must begin as quickly as possible, with a 12-week backstop from investigation, and completed within a reasonable timeframe. Once the regulations are in force, landlords must comply, and tenants can take legal action for breach of contract if they do not. The regulations take into account genuine uncontrollable circumstances preventing compliance or if landlords can prove they used all reasonable endeavours to comply with requirements.
These initial regulations focus on damp and mould, emergency hazards. I will return in 2026 and 2027 with further regulations to extend the law to additional hazards. This allows us to act now, tackling the 7% of socially rented homes in England suffering from damp while testing this first phase with tenants and landlords to make sure we get things right before moving to subsequent phases. This phased approach does not reduce landlords’ existing duties to ensure that their properties are free from dangerous hazards. We will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of Awaab’s law, adding future phases to deliver the best outcomes.
I now move on to the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025. Private landlords are already required to check the electrics in their properties. We must now ensure that social housing tenants have the same protections.
Electrical faults in homes can be extremely dangerous. This reform will mean that tenants will know their electrics are safe. It will drive up standards and reduce deaths and injuries caused by electrical faults. The new requirements will come into force for new tenancies in November and for existing tenancies next year. All landlords will have to test the electrical installations in their properties at least every five years, to make sure that safety standards are met and repairs carried out. The regulations also go further, requiring landlords to check electrical equipment they provide. Local councils will have the power to require remedial works, if necessary, and can arrange the works themselves if action is not taken by the landlord. Additionally, these regulations raise the maximum financial penalty to £40,000 for landlords, private or social, who do not comply.
I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a correction slip has been issued for this statutory instrument. Regulation 11 stated that it inserts a Regulation 12B in the 2020 regulations. It should read “12A”.
To summarise, these new requirements are not an additional burden to the many landlords we know already take a proactive approach to keeping homes safe. Clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and timelines to meet them, eliminate uncertainty for everyone and help make sure that tenants can live in the safe homes they deserve.
Both these sets of regulations have received consistent support from across the House and the sector. I am confident that I bring robust regulations to the House, strengthened by consultation. Subject to the approval of Parliament, Awaab’s law is due to come into effect from October this year and electrical safety requirements for social tenancies from November. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, these are excellent regulations, sorely needed, and I commend our Government for bringing them forward. There is one problem that concerns me. They do not cover all social renters and, therefore, there is an element of discrimination. I should declare an interest as an officeholder in various Gypsy and Traveller organisations, so my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised at what I am about to say. Indeed, I asked her a Question about this very thing because Gypsies and Travellers are not covered. Although they rent their houses from social landlords, their houses are, in fact, caravans—permanent caravans—and they have amenity blocks on the sites for the use of water.
The problem is that the law does not correspond to reality. So, as I said, Gypsies and Travellers have their homes rented from social landlords on caravan sites with amenity blocks for the use of water. But my noble friend answered on 14 July:
“As caravans are not buildings according to the definitions set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 or the Housing Act 2004, it is the government’s position that Awaab’s Law will not extend to Gypsies and Travellers living permanently in caravans on sites with amenity blocks that are rented from social landlords”.
Usually, local authority-owned sites may be reasonably maintained. The problem there is that there are simply not enough of them. In other social landlords’ sites, the standards are simply so low as to affect health, safety and well-being.
There are different ways of framing laws so that they relate to what actually is the case. I submit that that is what the law ought to be doing. I think it is our job here in your Lordships’ House to ensure that laws fit the circumstances and values that now obtain, rather than outmoded concepts. To continue to let the law express these outmoded and unjust ideas would amount, I think, to a dereliction of our task. So I hope my noble friend can come up with some way to include these citizens who have fewer rights than other citizens.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these important regulations in Grand Committee. The first concern I have is that the tragic death of Awaab occurred at the end of 2020. It then took nearly three years for the law in his name to be passed, and another two years to introduce the regulations that put the Act into effect. I get dismayed sometimes at the length of time it takes to make changes when the initial reaction is that this is a situation that requires urgent emergency attention.
I am not pointing the finger of blame at anybody; sometimes it is everybody’s and nobody’s responsibility. But if the Minister could explain why it has taken so long, it would help me to understand why we are just getting the regulations now, two years on. But I am pleased that they will be enacted next month, as I think she said.
One of the concerns I have about the regulations is the tenant’s recourse when action is not taken. They complain and say, “You’ve got to get something done”, but nothing gets done. In my experience as a councillor dealing with lots of social housing, the issue is often that tenants for whom English is perhaps not their main language, or who have moved around a lot and do not know the ins and outs of how things should work, miss out when it comes to issues such as this. Which is, of course, what happened in the tragic incident with Awaab in the first place—talking but not being heard. Again, I wonder whether the Minister could just try to close that circle for me and say that there will be somebody who will say, “If you make a complaint, we’re going to make sure something happens”.
The last point I make about these regulations is that they have come about because either current or former local authority housing—the better-quality housing—has gone under right to buy. Consequently, when councils are fulfilling their duty to house homeless families, often what is left is poor-quality housing. There is an awful circle of deprivation that we cannot seem to break out of—I know that this is an attempt to do so—where homeless families go into the poorest quality housing. Often, they are families who will have to move again and again, where English is not their first language, or they may have learning difficulties. When they try to complain, nobody listens, because they do not have the clout that others have. And so it goes on. I know that this is an attempt to break that cycle; we just need to do a bit more. But I am pleased it is coming.
I turn to the second SI, on electrical safety. Of course, it was a faulty fridge that caused the fire in Grenfell Tower. That is not covered by this, but I hope that, as with statutory gas inspections of social housing, this will encourage tenants to understand that electrical safety is as important as gas safety—that it will raise understanding a bit if they get a knock on the door to check whether the electrical equipment put in by their landlord is safe. It is interesting, if I am right, that private landlords have to test other electrical equipment in their homes; PAT testing of major electrical items seems to happen.
With those comments, I think these are two good sets of regulations, but I worry about the timeliness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments.
The first of these instruments follows the tragic death of two year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020, a deeply distressing case with which I am all too familiar. My heart goes out to his family, who have been fighting this case for almost five years. Awaab lost his life due to prolonged exposure to mould in his family’s social housing. Awaab’s family and parents did all they could to get the local social housing provider to deal with the problems, to no avail. His death serves as a stark and painful reminder of the devastating consequences that follow when serious hazards in social housing are unaddressed.
This statutory instrument seeks to implement part of Awaab’s law, introduced under the previous Government through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. It sets time-bound legal duties on landlords to investigate hazards, communicate with tenants in writing and resolve issues within set deadlines.
This is a welcome legal framework, but it begs serious questions. Most urgently, why has it taken so long? When we were in government, our intention was to act, and we were planning to bring in these protections by autumn 2024, following the consultation. At that time, we were already in dialogue with people in the social housing sector, many of whom had proactively begun updating their internal procedures to reflect the law’s requirements. Indeed, in my experience, housing associations and local authorities were already taking steps to improve how they handled damp and mould complaints, introducing clear communication strategies and triaging cases based on vulnerability and risk.
I ask the Minister directly: why has it taken until September 2025 for this instrument to be brought forward, when the tragedy that prompted it occurred in 2020 and the consultation concluded earlier this year? Why have the Government allowed yet another winter to pass without these protections being fully operational?
On 22 October 2024, I pressed the Minister on that exact point. I asked, quite reasonably, when they would introduce the secondary legislation, and I was told by the Minister at the time that regulations would be laid in autumn 2024. Yet here we are, nearly a year later, and the family of Awaab Ishak are still waiting.
My concerns are further compounded by the phased implementation timetable, which delays until 2027 the application of some of these protections to other serious hazards such as excessive cold, heat, fire and poor hygiene. Why must we wait until 2027? Are we really prepared to accept that vulnerable children will spend the next two winters in dangerous houses, exposed to hazards that the Government already recognise as life-threatening?
Again I ask the Minister: why have the Government chosen to delay full implementation by nearly two years, when the sector has already had time to prepare and families cannot afford to wait? I note that, in last year’s exchange, the Minister said that
“we want to get this done as fast as possible. No one should ever have to lose a child because of the condition of their home”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 511.]
Those were strong and welcome words. But actions matter more than rhetoric, and I respectfully must say that this timeline does not reflect that urgency.
My last question for the Minister on this instrument is: how will the Government ensure that social landlords will communicate these changes to their tenants? If tenants do not know, tenants cannot do anything about it.
Turning to the second instrument before us, on the extension of electrical safety standards to the social rented sector, this too is welcome. It brings social housing in line with the regulations that have applied in the private rented sector since 2020. It requires all landlords, private and social, to carry out electrical inspections at least every five years, issue safety reports to tenants and complete remedial works within 28 days. The inclusion of electrical equipment through in-service testing, formally known as PAT, is particularly welcome and an important step.
However, I must again return to the timeline. The Charter for Social Housing Residents, published in 2020, promised action. A working group was formed and a consultation was launched in 2022, but only now, three years later, do we see regulations laid. I look to the Minister for justification on this.
In closing, I want to reiterate that this is not a question of politics; it is a matter of justice, of decency and of delivering a promise made not just to the Ishak family but to all tenants who have been suffering in silence. I commend the intent behind these regulations, but I honestly urge the Government to show the urgency that this situation demands. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses for their thoughtful contributions today, and I again express my gratitude to Awaab’s family for their tireless campaigning in reaching this point, as well as to the organisations and campaigners that have supported them.
I am very pleased to note the general support for the intention of these two sets of regulations and our work to improve the quality of all housing, but I will respond to the important points that have been made by noble Baronesses.
To start with my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s comments, I expect she knows the answer that I am going to give her, but that does not mean that I care any less than I have when I have had meetings with her. I pay tribute to her constant advocacy for the Gypsy and Traveller community. It is very lucky to have such an eloquent champion, and it has been a pleasure to speak to her and discuss the issues with her.
As my noble friend said in her speech, caravans are not buildings according to the definitions set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 or the Housing Act 2004, and it is the Government’s position that Awaab’s law will not extend to Gypsies and Travellers living permanently in caravans on sites with amenity blocks that are rented from social landlords. We expect local councils to ensure that amenity blocks provided on local authority-managed sites are safe and healthy. But I want to continue to engage with my noble friend, and with the groups that I know she is very connected with, on the issues affecting those in non-traditional tenures. I hope that she will be happy to do that, because I want to move this on from where we are at the moment.
There was the quite justified challenge on why this has taken so long. The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, both challenged on that. I have had just about a year on this, but it has been in the pipeline for much longer than that. Of course, we wanted to get these changes absolutely right. We have taken time to closely consult and engage directly with social housing landlords and social tenants. It is critical that the requirements we set in legislation are effective and deliver the best long-term outcomes for social housing tenants.
Following the coroner’s report, the Government published comprehensive guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould in September 2023, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was the Minister. Awaab’s law will come into force for emergency hazards, damp and mould on 27 October, and we will bring forward further legislation to address other significant hazards in 2026 and 2027. I understand the frustrations about those dates, but it is important that we get these instruments right, so that we can see what the impact is and do not have to come back to the subject.
This Government are committed to driving better outcomes for tenants and ensuring that people can be proud to live in social housing. I want to do as much as we can to reduce the stigma that some social housing tenants feel as well.
Introducing these requirements in a phased way allows us to test with tenants and landlords how phase 1 is working before we move on to phases 2 and 3. This will help us to get this right and deliver legislation that will have a lasting legacy for social tenants. We are clear that Awaab’s law will apply to a wider set of hazards over time, to protect tenants regardless of the cause. There is no excuse for social landlords to ignore hazards while we are in the process of phasing in these requirements. They must continue to meet their duties to keep their homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair.
Social landlords must also ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standard. It is critical that they take action against any issues in their homes as soon as possible to guarantee the safety and comfort of their residents. Not only do I take this very seriously but so does the social housing regulator, which comes within my area of responsibility in the department. We are not saying, “You don’t need to worry about this until 2026 and 2027”; we want action to be taken immediately, and we will work on the legislation in the meantime.
In response to the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about protections before Awaab’s law is fully rolled out, as I said, it is critical that landlords take action on any issues in their homes as soon as possible to guarantee the safety and comfort of their residents. Awaab’s law establishes timeframes for social landlords to act and, once in force, will be enforceable through the courts. But social landlords are already required to keep their social homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair. Social landlords should be preparing for phase 1 of Awaab’s law—I know that many of them are; I talk to them regularly and they have been working on this for some time—and laying the groundwork for phase 2. They must not compromise on meeting their existing obligations in the meantime. Social landlords must also ensure that their homes meet the decent homes standard.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of communication with tenants. It is important, once this instrument has passed, that we write to all social landlords, stressing the importance of communicating to their tenants what these changes mean for them. I will take that on board and write to social landlords myself to tell them what the impacts of the instrument are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, rightly raised the issue of the responsibility on social tenants to raise issues with their landlords. One of the things I did when I first took responsibility for the social housing regulator was to talk to it about how it looks at tenant engagement. It is really critical. Last week or the week before, I had a meeting with a tenant’s voice organisation to work on how we might have a national voice for tenants. Every individual landlord must have the appropriate channels through which their tenants can communicate with them. If social landlords fail to fulfil their legal duties, it is important that tenants have a legal route to make things right.
Seeking redress through the courts is not the only way in which residents can challenge their landlords for breaches of Awaab’s law, and I realise that that might be something of an intimidating process for social tenants. Residents can complain to their landlord and then to the Housing Ombudsman if they are unhappy with the outcome. The ombudsman is a free service and has the power to order landlords to undertake repairs and pay compensation to the tenant. Legal aid is available for housing disrepair claims when there is a serious risk of illness or injury, subject to a financial means and merits test. I should also comment—all three of us have been councillors—that for any social tenant who is concerned about their housing conditions, their councillors are also there to support them and are able to direct them to the right source in order to complain about the condition of their housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue about the quantum of social housing. She will know that the Government have already taken steps to address the right to buy and we are consulting on further steps this year. She will have heard me say previously that I was pleased about the allocation in the spring of £39 billion to improve the quantum of social and affordable housing. That comes on top of the £800 million that we have already allocated for in-year provision of social and affordable housing. We will be publishing the prospectus for bids for social housing in the near future. It is not going to solve the problem overnight but it will at least make a start on delivering some more social housing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, also raised the issue of PAT testing—I understand that engineers are not keen on that term now, but I will use it because I think everyone knows what it means. Sadly, in the case of Grenfell, a fridge caused the issues. Social landlords are much more likely to own large multi-occupied buildings such as tower blocks and must test any electrical appliances that they provide as part of a tenancy. Private landlords are recommended to regularly carry out appliance testing on any electrical appliance they provide and then supply the tenant with a record of any electrical inspections carried out as good practice. Landlords may also consider registering products with a registration scheme but this is a complicated issue because, for most social landlords, properties are rented unfurnished. But there are some circumstances—supported housing, for example, and some types of Housing First-type accommodation for the homeless—where electrical equipment may be provided as part of the tenancy. So it is important that we provide an approach that allows for all those circumstances.
I will look at Hansard and make sure I have not missed any of the questions that I have been asked.
To conclude, Awaab’s law puts in place clear protections for tenants by making sure that dangerous damp, mould and emergency hazards are addressed quickly, and the draft electrical safety regulations will ensure that all landlords have to meet robust standards of electrical safety so that tenants can feel safe in their homes. These regulations are part of the Government’s wider quality reform package, which will ensure that every social housing resident has access to the safe and decent homes that they deserve. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this work over all the years in which it has been going on.
Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
“Review: factory shutdowns and school attendance(1) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must order a review of the effect of factory shutdowns on local school attendance.(2) The review must consider the merits of varying local school holiday dates to minimise the impact of factory shutdowns on school attendance.(3) The review must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed and must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is a simple amendment. I will preface my remarks by saying that, obviously, it is important that a child is in school as often as possible because when they are not in school, they are not learning. Equally, it is important that they have quality time with their parents. The opportunity to be with their mum, their dad, with both parents, is hugely important, and they learn so much from that opportunity.
As a very young teacher in Prescot, I was conscious that three large factories closed down for a period so that the factory workers could have a holiday. It often did not coincide with school holidays. As a school, we were relaxed about that because, again, we thought it important that children should be with their parents. That practice is very limited now. There are not many factories nationwide, but there are some, particularly in the north, that close down for a set period. I hope the amendment is clear that we take cognisance of that in terms of attendance issues.
On Amendment 499, there is not much to say; it speaks for itself. It is correct that all the available attendance information should be complete, accurate and consistent, and that it should always be available to parents.
I beg to move Amendment 426B.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and to give a nod to his amendment. I rise to speak to my Amendment 499 in this group, the purpose of which is incredibly clear: every child is entitled to an excellent education, but that does not mean that every child should receive the same education. The great joy of being born human is that we are born with rich, bright, beautiful diversity from the moment of entering this human world.
The difficulty with the Bill as set out is that it does not fully appreciate this fact or the difficulties parents have in achieving that excellence of provision for their children. In no sense is that a criticism of anybody in the system. Teachers do tremendous work, day in, day out, often in the most pressing, difficult of circumstances. This amendment is all about recognising the particularity of individual provision—not least for children and young people who may be disabled or have special educational needs—the difficulty for parents in trying to get an EHCP, and the often prohibitive cost involved, even if they can go through that time-consuming and terribly intense process.
The amendment simply asks the Secretary of State to produce a focused, “support-first” attendance code of practice that understands the particularities of those circumstances and that does not have an almost forced presumption that school is necessarily the best and only place for excellent educational provision. As I say, the amendment speaks to children, young people and parents across the piece, but it is often children who are disabled, who have special educational needs, and the parents of those children, who find themselves at the sharpest end of this current situation. That is why Amendment 499 suggests a support-focused, support-first attendance code of practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 499, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require the Secretary of State to issue a statutory attendance code of practice. I believe this is a modest proposal, yet one that could transform how attendance is enforced and supported across England.
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for stepping in for me last week, when I was unable to be here due to a family wedding. My own attendance record that day did not pass without comment. In fact, when the Whips discovered that the wedding was taking place on the Tuesday, business seemed to be swiftly and suspiciously rescheduled from Monday to Tuesday. In any case, I was unable to attend, but I am grateful none the less both to colleagues and to the staff of the House for their patience with me. My amendments have been submitted in large numbers, and some were received with humour, others less so, but they all make in their different ways the same point. At their heart lies concern about the overreach of this Bill and the heavy burden it will place on families and already overstretched local authority staff and systems.
Talking about attendance, practice across the country is wildly inconsistent, at present. One parent reported that, in their local authority, they have a 75% chance of being issued with a notice to satisfy, and a 35% chance of receiving a school attendance order. That authority issued 270 notices in a single year to just 320 home-educated children. In other areas, parents face nothing like this. This does not seem like safeguarding to me; it is a postcode lottery, and it is indefensible.
The current approach, regrettably, often defaults to enforcement and sanctions, rather than genuinely seeking to understand and address the underlying reason for unattendance. Over the summer, it was reported that Hampshire County Council had netted £1.6 million in revenue by fining families over the past three years. Government data shows that almost half a million penalty notices were issued last year, an increase of 22% from the previous year. This can exacerbate distress, erode trust between families and schools and, ultimately, fail to secure a child’s right to education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, as the Committee knows, school attendance every day is critical for the success of pupils. During Covid, the previous Government introduced the collection of attendance data at a pupil level twice a day— initially on a voluntary basis for all schools in England and now on a mandatory basis. We have among the best attendance data in the world, which allows every school in the country to understand the patterns of attendance and absence within their own pupil cohort and compared to the other schools in their local authority. I thank the Government for continuing the work that we started in this area and commend the officials who are responsible for producing such accessible and practical help for schools.
I argue that the systems that have been built within the Department for Education and that are being used more and more by schools mean that they can already analyse the impact on attendance not just of a factory shutdown but—perhaps more relevant for today—of a tube strike, bad weather or many other factors, and pretty much in real time. Therefore, I am not sure that Amendment 426B is needed. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was suggesting that there should be more flexibility for school attendance, but I do not agree with him. The evidence that the department has produced is clear on the impact of missing even apparently small amounts of time on, for example, GCSE results, and we need to respect that evidence.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his Amendment 499. He will forgive that I did not quite understand it in the way that he had presented it. My understanding, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that a considerable amount of diversity is already accommodated within schools. I have certainly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom, particularly those with an education, health and care plan—very often that plan sets out the details of the flexibility that they require.
More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical help to local authorities, admissions authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment. The department has been particularly proactive in this area and has encouraged those schools that are succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those that are struggling. Very often, it is about those positive actions that they take, such as putting on more after-school clubs, for example, or calling parents, when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance, with a message of congratulations. I absolutely understand and respect my noble friend’s concern about this issue, but respectfully suggest that his amendment is not needed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity by supporting every child to achieve and thrive at school. We know the impact that any absence can have on a pupil. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child’s career, can disproportionately impact on that child’s achievement and, of course, create disruption in the classroom for other pupils.
That is why I am very pleased that, thanks to the efforts of the sector, absence is moving in the right direction; children are attending over 3.1 million more days this year compared to last and over 100,000 fewer children are persistently absent. However, this still leaves around one in five pupils currently missing 10% or more of school, which is why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says, there has been considerable focus on this which, as she also says, builds on the work done by the last Government. In fact, she in particular has worked on developing the sort of data to enable comparison and monitoring of progress.
In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to help support schools identify the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice to improve attendance for all children, including the most vulnerable. We have launched an attendance and behaviour programme, with strong schools offering support to others to improve their practice. We have held 12 conferences, attended by around 3,000 leaders from secondary schools, trusts and local authorities to help drive that change.
Amendment 426B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the effects of factory shutdowns on school attendance. We acknowledge, as the noble Lord says, that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those area-specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside term time, but schools and local authorities also have considerable flexibility to plan term dates and can hold inset days and other occasional days at times of the year suited to the specific needs of families in their area.
Amendment 499 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on attendance. I accept his point about the need to recognise the different needs of children in our schools, which we have talked about in various other groups in Committee. On his call for a standardised approach setting out the requirements and roles of those outlined in the amendment, there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in the amendment in relation to improving school attendance.
The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022 following a full consultation and it was updated in August 2024. This guidance takes a “support first” approach to improving school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the department to promote and embed its contents and share best practice from around the country. It will be updated as needed in future. Introducing a separate code of practice, as this amendment proposes, would duplicate this statutory guidance that we already have in place, risking confusion and waste. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
“Sharing local authority best practice on home education(1) All local authorities must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out—(a) the total number of home educators in their area (A),(b) the number of complaints they have received from home educators in the preceding year (B), and(c) the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued in the preceding year (C).(2) The Secretary of State must make funding and resources available to any local authority which performs in the top ten percent of both—(a) B as a percentage of A, and(b) C as a percentage of A,to facilitate those local authorities sharing best practice regarding management of home education with local authorities performing in the bottom ten percent of the same metrics.”
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 426D and 426E tabled in my name. These amendments, though modest in scope, address two fundamental issues in the way that our system interacts with families who choose to home-educate or educate otherwise: the sharing of best practice across local authorities and safeguarding children from harm that may arise when legal action is pursued without due regard for their welfare and education.
Amendment 426D would require all local authorities to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out three simple but highly revealing metrics:
“the total number of home educators in their area … the number of complaints they have received from home educators … and … the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued”.
These figures are important because they shed light on how local authorities are engaging with families. They provide a means of comparison, showing where relationships are constructive and where perhaps mistrust and conflict are more frequent. This amendment goes further: it would introduce a mechanism to reward local authorities that demonstrate strong positive performance under these measures—specifically, those in the top 10%—and whose complaints and attendance orders are low relative to the number of families. They would receive funding and support to share their best practice with authorities that find themselves in the bottom 10%. This is not about penalising weaker authorities but about equipping them to learn from others, improve their systems of engagement and, ultimately, foster more trusting relationships with home educators.
While I have mainly focused in Committee on the problems that arise when local authorities overreach, it is important to recognise that there are many examples of thoughtful and constructive engagement which deserve to be commended. Parents have spoken warmly of meetings in which their children have felt valued. One child enjoyed showing his work after initial hesitation, turning what might have been a stressful encounter into a positive one. Authorities such as Salford have invested in training staff to understand diverse approaches, from structured to child-led learning, while families in Cambridge have noted that their efforts to educate officials about progressive methods have borne fruit. Portsmouth has piloted three-way meetings between school, parent and LA to support families considering elective home education, fostering collaboration rather than conflict.
Other good practice includes the creation of parental advisory boards—informal events where families and officials meet in a supportive environment—and commitments to provide local exam centres and fairer access to resources. These examples remind us that, when authorities choose partnership over prescription, families respond positively and children thrive. In my view, this is precisely the sort of light-touch but constructive intervention that respects both the duties of local authorities and the rights of parents. It recognises that the challenges of home education are best addressed not by top-down prescription but by the careful exchange of experience, knowledge and good practice.
Amendment 426E is motivated by an equally important principle: that the welfare and education of the child must always come first. It makes it clear that no parent should be subject to criminal prosecution, penalty or sanction under the provisions of this Bill, if such legal action would cause harm to their child’s welfare or, on balance, cause greater harm to their education than if the action were not taken. The amendment is carefully drafted. It grounds the definition of welfare in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the bedrock of our child protection framework, and it ties the understanding of education to both Section 9 of the Education Act 1996, which requires respect for parental wishes, and to Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to education. In other words, this is not about creating a loophole; it is about ensuring that the pursuit of enforcement powers does not, in itself, become a source of harm.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of both my noble friend’s amendments. The Department for Education has an important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of their relationship with and service for the home-educating community. The department can provide leadership on this by giving local authorities the feeling that the Government understand what they are doing, and that is the direction that the Government wish to take. That needs to be transmitted. Doing it in a way which celebrates the achievements of local authorities, and draws out the best of what is happening and makes a good example of that, is a motivating and constructive way to do this. I hope that the Government will take this direction. Local authority home-educating departments tend to be small, a bit isolated and stuck at the back end of safeguarding, and subject to all the pressures that come from that activity. The department has an important role to play in helping get things right.
On my noble friend’s second amendment, as the Government will know from my previous amendments, this is a direction I very much support. We should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listened to the Secretary of State’s speech at the launch of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the Government’s answer today.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, on Amendment 426D, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. It is important that good practice is shared between home educators and local authorities, and that the quality of home education is the best it can possibly be, and local authorities have a huge role to play in ensuring that happens. We already know—many noble Lords have mentioned particular examples—the sterling work local authorities have done with home educators.
I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing an annual report. We have seen dozens of other amendments decrying the fact that more information is required, but to put this annual report together would require doing exactly that—asking for all that form-filling and more information to come to the centre. There might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do a report—the amendment suggests an annual report—on the work that is going on with home educators and which could be shared with other home educators. To me, to put it in a formal way and say that the Secretary of State will produce an annual report is bureaucracy gone mad.
I am, in a sense, surprised by the second amendment. Schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly, as has been mentioned, those with neuro- diverse issues such as autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children. This amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities—policies that have been developed by the previous Government and this Government. We should recognise the work that goes on currently. Despite concerns, I can tell noble Lords that, in all the dealings I have had with schools, head teachers and teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those pupils.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, briefly, I have a query about proposed new subsection (2) to be inserted by Amendment 426E. I am wondering who would make the judgment around whether legal action would be required if it were to
“harm … a child’s welfare, or … on balance, … greater harm … a child’s education than if the legal action was not pursued”.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. In my experience, schools have been very good at making the assessments and dealing with young people’s difficulties. The difficulty sometimes is in the relationship between the school and the authorities—I find that that can be problematic.
I am not clear about supporting the amendment because of that proposed subsection, as I am not sure who would make that judgment. Who would make the judgment as to whether the child or young person is doing that deliberately, or whether it is due to their mental health state or some other reason? I am keen to know who would make that judgment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I preface my remarks on these amendments by saying that I do not recognise the Dickensian school world that my noble friend describes. I would encourage him to visit any of the schools that I have visited, led by the noble Lords, Lord Nash, Lord Knight and Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Agnew. In case anyone is thinking that I think only about academies, at my school of joy, Stanley Road Primary School in Oldham, the children are bursting with pride at what they achieve, in a clearly very deprived community. I acknowledge and thank all those involved in delivering education and joy to our children across our schools.
My noble friend’s Amendment 426D seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities on home education. The principle of sharing best practice is, of course, an excellent one, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, when he says that it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to require this report. There is nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already. Local conditions vary considerably on, for example, the availability of special schools between local authorities. The conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friend suggests should be analysed could be misleading.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on Amendment 426E and the care that schools take to support children. There is a wider point here. It could be argued that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of a child’s parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child’s principal carer is sent to prison, and that is something that the courts already consider. My noble friend’s amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that is not realistic. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify both these points when she comments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly associate myself with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the excellent work happening in schools around the country and the enormous pride, enjoyment and achievement that children experience in those schools. However, I would add that, in last week’s lengthy debates—and in those before the Recess—on the provisions in the Bill on children not in school registers, the Government were very clear that there is a right for parents in this country to educate children at home. In fact, as we discussed, we are probably one of the most permissive regimes of any country in allowing you to educate your child at home. What children not in school registers are about is ensuring that the education is suitable and children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that is not what is being delivered.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and look forward to this letter. I am also grateful to the department for the correspondence that I and other noble Peers received relating to our questions.
I just want to reflect on some of the contributions. First, to clarify, the request for information from local authorities is asking them to provide data that they already have. Even though it might seem a little bureaucratic, I do not think it would require much more than a few minutes, or an hour or so, probably once a year. This is to be balanced with the tremendous bureaucratic demands that will be placed on over 100,000 families, for all the information pertaining to the education of their child, all the providers, which, in many cases will take many hours, days or weeks even, based on testimony I have received from families. So, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a set of data to be provided, to share good practice and highlight where there are areas for improvement on the local authority side, given the disproportionate bureaucratic demands, proposed in this Bill, to be placed on parents.
On Amendment 426E, I want to also clarify that we are not talking about mainstream schooling for the majority of pupils or schools in this country. When I talk about some of the distress, the suicides or attempted suicides of children who are forced back into school through some of our measures, we are talking about extreme cases in this country, where it is inappropriate for that child to be sent to a school. Perhaps they have been home educated all their life. Perhaps, as I have testimony of, the parents who have been busy home educating have been repeatedly asked by the local authority for information—even recently and then asked again. They have said, “We can’t share any more. We need to educate our child”. That very statement that they cannot share the information that they shared very recently is interpreted as the child not receiving a suitable education by the local authority.
At the moment, there is no protection. Ultimately, you go down a legal process. I agree that many of the schools will take great care to ensure that whatever they ask the family to do will not harm the child or harm their education, but there is a gap. I would urge the Minister and department to look at this gap, when it is not the school deciding but the local authority deciding, in some cases without much resource or experienced people. They are having to make a very significant decision about whether to take action against that family. All I am saying is, why do we not pay attention to the harm that might cause? Schools, I think, are cognisant, on the whole, of this if they are functioning well. I am not sure that in every case, every local authority is able to make that decision on its own properly.
By the time you get to the courts—including the European courts and so on—and they enforce the principles, that is great, but that has already taken many months, perhaps a year or two, during which the family has had to face tremendous uncertainty and stress, which will inevitably have an impact on the child’s education.
I have heard the response from the Minister and will reflect on what has been said. I may wish to return to this at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(c) institutions in England that cater for children placed with them for alternative provision by local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring unregistered alternative provision within the scope of routine oversight.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.
This amendment concerns the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered alternative provision. In my view, that should not happen. These children need quality provision, almost by definition. That they should be placed in unregistered provision by the state seems to me a complete dereliction of duty. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has a rather more subtle and nuanced approach to this; I very much look forward to listening to it.
Amendment 427B suggests to the Minister that the Government should tighten up on, or give themselves additional scope to deal with, unregistered illegal schools that seek to disguise themselves by splitting into separate parts. This is merely a technical issue that the Government should address.
The other amendments in this group address the challenge that the Bill presents to the Haredi community. Obviously, the same principles that I am addressing here will apply to other religious communities where they provide substantial education for their children, but I am focusing on Haredi because I have been talking extensively to them—though I claim no authority to speak for them and no deep knowledge of their life. The Haredi are a venerable and peaceful community. They are contributors to commercial life and to the common good, though they keep themselves apart in many ways.
It is part of the British way, as I understand it, to respect religions. The Haredi community, as with other religious communities, has cultural values that differ from those of wider society, such as treating sexuality as a private, more intimate, subject and having both specific gender roles and a stronger community structure. However, in my experience of the way in which this country is organised, we allow space for these differences and do not attempt to eradicate them, although we set boundaries and should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features, and we are quite right to say, “No, those are off-limits”, whatever our religious belief. Where we choose to set those boundaries will change over time and be a matter for debate, obviously, but we should be confident in setting those boundaries.
This Bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond the boundaries set in the Bill; yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflicts are around the requirement that yeshivas would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feels, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and would make it impossible for them to continue.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to associate myself with his remarks. I speak to Amendment 427C on behalf of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, in whose name the amendment stands. He very much regrets his inability to attend today’s Committee debate. His amendment offers a reasonable and practical solution to the finely balanced tension between freedom and regulation in education provided by religious bodies.
As things stand, the Bill recognises two types of full-time education: education undertaken in either a school or an independent educational institution. The latter would need to be registered according to the 2008 Act and the requirement to register would apply to education that is more than “part time”. The need to include education provided by religious bodies in national mechanisms for oversight is well understood by all. The Church of England, for example, has taken enormous strides forward in both safeguarding training and safeguarding processes in local parishes that welcomed an average of 95,000 children each week in 2023.
We welcome the Government’s goal to strengthen educational oversight across the nation but, in relation to education provided by religious bodies, there are three issues with the Bill as it stands. First, as the National Society for Education wrote in its response to the Government on safeguarding in out-of-school settings:
“Compulsory state registration for religious activity involving children would significantly extend the role of the state in civil society and represents a considerable and major change to the nature of religious freedom”.
Freedom of religion and belief is a precious human liberty and legislators should think very carefully about the unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones, before enacting regulations that might inadvertently threaten that freedom and inhibit religious diversity.
The possibility of unintended consequences brings me to my second point. There is a risk that imposing extra bureaucratic burdens on many volunteer-run out-of-school settings would have an unintended chilling effect. Those unintended consequences might easily follow from a new burden to tot up religious educational activities, such as choir practice, for fear of exceeding the part-time hours below which registration is not required. This is to say nothing of the practicalities of securely and safely holding all the personally identifiable data that registration and keeping details current would impose on the Government as well as the religious educational institution.
Thirdly and finally, there are the difficult edge cases such as yeshivas that do not quite fit any of the categories that the Bill proposes. No one disputes that such out-of-school cases demand adequate scrutiny to ensure that children are being educated both broadly and safely, in addition to any religious component of their education.
This brings me to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. It would offer a balanced and proportional route forward by ensuring that the provisions of the Bill can be met where a setting such as a yeshiva limits itself only to religious education; that the local authority has been clearly notified that an attendee has suitable out-of-school education separately and with sufficient time set aside to allow children to receive that broader education; and that the provider of that religious education demonstrates to the local authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures. I commend the amendment to the Minister and the Committee.
Lord Glasman (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment. I respect his gentleness and his nobility—it is very much appreciated.
I begin with just a couple of remarks. I very rarely speak in the House and, when I got here, I was given very sage advice that the more you speak, the less people listen. I therefore beg the attention of the Committee in this case, as it is a matter of great importance to me. It may come as a surprise to my fellow Labour Peers but, in the 14 years that I have been here, I have never once voted against the party. Party loyalty is a crucial part of our constitutional system. I therefore just say that this is a very important matter to me. It is not a matter of conscience—Clement Attlee used to say to Ministers who publicly rebelled, “I thought that conscience was supposed to be a still, small voice”—but a matter of obligation.
I am the Lord of Stoke Newington and of Stamford Hill. Stoke Newington does not really matter in this case, because people there do not care, but Stamford Hill is the centre of the last remnant of European Hasidic Jewry. Their origins mainly lie around 17th-century Ukraine but also Poland. Of the 6 million who were murdered by the Nazis, 3.5 million were Hasidic Jews. They were absolutely devastated by that.
They are a very strange bunch—very mystic, spiritual and absolutely not involved in Zionism or things like that. Those who live in Israel refuse to serve in the Israeli army. They are non-violent, and very committed to exile and a kind of redemption through prayer. For those here who are Muslim, I would say that they are very close to the Sufi tendency. For those who are Christian, I would say that they are probably closest to the Amish. In the film “Witness” with Harrison Ford, there is actually that mistaken identity moment with the child.
I was brought up close to them but not of them. Obviously, my story is different. At the age of 14, I became a socialist and an atheist and my troubles began—and the party’s troubles also probably began at that moment. I have always had a relationship with them, both family and personal. To me, they are a very precious remnant of a destroyed culture. It is a glory to our country that this very peculiar religious community could exist only in our country. It only survived in our country in all of Europe.
I could tell you stories I was told when I was young. They had no idea that all their rabbis, community and family were in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary and those areas. After the war, there was no one there. I met people who went on delegations to find their family and find out why their letters were not being answered. All were destroyed. I have personally travelled through Ukraine and gone to the villages and towns where Jews made up 60% or 70%. Nobody is there. It is all gone. The synagogues are ruined; the cemeteries are desecrated. In only our country did this community survive.
They are a historical anomaly. They should not really exist; they should have been wiped out. It was not only the Nazis; the Bolsheviks—the communists—absolutely laid them to waste. They abolished religious education and yeshivas were illegal, so we should take great pride that our country is unique in Europe in having some kind of continuity of presence for this community and in the way things were sorted out with the yeshivas.
I heard very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, and I share completely this desire to try to find some accommodation and understanding of how this works. It is a ridiculous state of affairs that I have to be in Stamford Hill and defend Bridget Phillipson from the accusation of being a Bolshevik. This is an insane circumstance. I assure them that she is absolutely not, but the historical memory of the community is precisely reminiscent of the Soviet Union: suddenly, their education will be banned, their way of life will be criminalised and they will be packing their bags. It is a very moving situation. As I say, I speak as a matter not of conscience but of obligation.
The arrangement we came to in the 1944 Act was very wise, in my opinion. It is absolutely vital to say that the accommodation was based on this: the yeshivas are not schools; children are home-educated. However, they spend an awful lot of time in these yeshivas, studying the Talmud and these things. I assure noble Lords that I was very grateful not to be part of that, but that is what they do. So the children are, technically speaking, home-schooled.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly in overall support of Amendment 427C, which has just been so well moved and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. I support the thrust of the Bill and what the Government are doing in these sections. I suppose, in a way, my remarks are directed not just towards the Minister but to her officials who will be listening. I would encourage them to engage with the thrust of this clause: if this is not necessarily the right wording, then something along these lines.
Those of us who have had the privilege of serving as Ministers in the Department for Education—I was going to say “served time”, but I do not quite mean that—know that these are difficult issues and have become more complicated. While we have heard a particular focus on a particular religious group, I know from previous conversations, in relation to both yeshivas and other religious institutions, that there is always a reason why there should be an exception, yet we also know that there will be those who seek to subvert any exception for the wrong reasons and it is the young people who will lose out.
What attracts me to this particular amendment is the fact that the local authority would be involved in terms not only of registration but of safeguarding assurance. I have some concern: we do not want to go back to 1944, when the world was very different—we are in 2025 and we know a lot more about different institutions—but, overall, as we know and have heard set out so powerfully, there are many communities who want both to comply with the law and to have their practices and customs respected. I hope that, even if it is not with this amendment, discussions behind the scenes before we get to the next stage of the Bill can find a way through so that these provisions are able to go through with the support of the whole House.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 427C and the gist of the speeches and comments that we have heard so far. In doing so, I tread with great care, because I realise the history, the sensitivities, and the passion and commitment of those people whose lives would be involved. I do not pretend to be part of that community or to criticise it in any way. I am very proud that our country welcomes people of all faiths. I have always been a defender of faith schools and served for a while on the board of Church of England schools. As a Minister, I argued—sometimes with great difficulty within my own party—for continuing with faith schools. That is the background I come from, but I cannot support this amendment.
Over the past 12 months, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I have had the privilege of meeting young adults, some up to the age of 30 and some in their late teens, who have been students at yeshivas and educated within the system, living within the community. To be honest, they would not recognise the description that the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, has just given. They would not describe their own education and their own lives in that way. So I think our starting point should be that, as with any school or any community, there is a risk to children if we do not protect them in an orderly way and in the way that we should.
I am not opposed to this community being able to continue to educate in its own faith. Why would we not wish it to do that when we allow every other faith to do the same? But that is possible already. There are Haredi-registered schools where parents can send their children. It is not the case that if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a school based on this faith. They can—and it is in the registered sector. What I have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose Amendment 427C. My argument for doing so is very straightforward: if you are there at 8 am and you leave at 6 pm, it is a school. Whatever you do at home afterwards is not full-time education. If you are there at 8 am and leave at 6 pm, it does not in any way have that balance of education that I think we want for everyone.
I understand that it is difficult to get the balance right and decide where to draw the dividing lines. It is not easy and there is an element of compromise, but what I have heard from the people who have spoken so far is that we all welcome the Bill and we all want things to be regulated to protect children—but not this religion, not this faith, not this group. I cannot buy into that. Every child, including children in this community, deserves to be safeguarded and to have a broad and balanced education, which we are all signed up to. Unless you register it, I cannot see how this will happen.
Where I think the debate comes in is the nature of the registration and the consultation with the community. I urge the Minister, as I know she will— I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, spoke with her already on this—to try to get an understanding and, where possible, to fit our wish to regulate to protect children with the rights of the community to continue to educate its children in its faith. I would not want to stop that, but I would not want to support anything that excluded children from this community from being safeguarded in the way that children from other communities are.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley has just said. Perhaps I can say to my noble friend Lord Glasman that I am Lady Blackstone of Stoke Newington, so we share part of our region in our titles. I am familiar with the Haredi community and have been for very many years, and I admire a great deal of what they do, but I am concerned about what is happening to some of the boys in this community. I share the concern based not only on the meetings that I have had, with my noble friend Lady Morris, with some of the young men who have been through these institutions, but also on the very good charity Nahamu, which is concerned about the abuses of children that are taking place in these yeshivas in north London and, I think, Manchester as well. The trustees of Nahamu are proud members of the Orthodox Jewish community and they are concerned about what is happening to fellow Jewish young men and boys. I think that we should respect that concern in considering how we approach the whole issue of these yeshivas. I will speak at greater length in the next group about what I and my noble friend Lady Morris think we should do to make sure that these young men get the education they deserve, which they are not at the moment, and that their experience is properly safeguarded.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support and compliment the amendments to Clause 36 in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. The amendments seek to ensure that institutions that provide only religious instruction alongside guaranteed out-of-school education are not wrongly categorised as independent educational institutions under this Bill.
Education in this country has never been a one-size-fits-all, state-run system. Home-schooling remains every parent’s legal right. One community, however, has been singled out by Clause 36: the Haredi, or strictly Orthodox, Jewish community, whose boys attend yeshivas, which are supervised religious settings, alongside receiving home-schooling. As one professor remarked about the Bill’s intentions, which in its supplementary documents almost exclusively singled out that community, it is fine to be Jewish in the UK in 2025 as long as you are not too Jewish. That should not be.
Yeshivas are not schools and they cannot become schools. They are religious spaces operating alongside home-schooling with a wholly different purpose. They are settings where young men engage deeply with their heritage, to develop their spiritual and ethical character and absorb the wisdom and traditions of the Jewish rabbinic corpus. Inculcating a lived faith is fundamentally different from teaching subjects like geography or history. Those subjects are generally limited to one or two sessions a week. Inculcating one’s children into a lived faith must be an immersive experience. That is what yeshivas are all about and why they are so central to our faith community. Yeshivas operate as supervised spaces with robust safeguarding and health and safety arrangements in place. They allow sufficient and flexible breaks to enable attendees to continue their home-schooling alongside yeshiva.
Yeshivas are not illegal schools; they are not schools at all. They operate alongside home-schooling arrangements. The children there do not have access to television, smartphones, video games or social media. Their daily routine is geared towards study and productivity, making the days longer and more suitable for home-schooling.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to speak in support of Amendment 451, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, but perhaps he is going to introduce it when he winds up for his Front Bench. What I have to say is probably relevant to the wider aspects of this debate. I declare that I am a patron of Humanists UK.
I have listened to children speaking about the unregistered schools that they went to, of all faiths. Of course this is only about some schools. Nevertheless, I was very struck by what they had to say about the paucity of the curriculum, often about the enforced dogma of what was taught, sometimes about abuse and sometimes about a very anti-social and anti-democratic ethos. Of course this does not at all represent all faith schools, but those children themselves were not alone.
In short, we need to get a grip on unregistered schools, especially in the case of children for whom education has not been working well, as in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s explanation of how we navigate this real problem in the free and diverse society we live in, as we must—we must navigate it. Unregistered schools are not all good—on the contrary.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, the concern of those who have spoken against Amendment 427C in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, is, if I have understood right, around whether these pupils are being safeguarded. Proposed new paragraph (h)(iii) says
“where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures”.
That is important. If it did not say that, I would be joining those who do not want this amendment.
The noble Lord said that it is wrong to call these schools and to think that they are providing education, and that the education being provided is in home-schooling. In terms of safeguarding, the amendment is very clear: the local authority must be satisfied that safeguarding measures are in place. Therefore, for me, the arguments fall away because the drift of them was about whether there is sufficient safeguarding for these pupils.
Because the amendment is quite sensitive, I was not going to speak to it or support it. Having heard the arguments, I am persuaded that proposed new paragraph (h)(iii) answers the question. Therefore, I am bound to support this amendment.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak to this group of amendments on the poorly understood world of unregistered provision, including the types of religious institution that have had a lot of discussion already, as well as looking more broadly. I support two of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas—Amendments 427 and 427B.
Clause 36 is a constructive attempt to put sensible controls in place around the oversight of educational provision for children outside schools and colleges. It creates a wider category of independent education institution to supplement the narrower concept of an independent school. This is a complicated and messy landscape. I could draw out at least four strands—there are probably others—and they overlap. There are the alternative provisions, most often for children with severe behavioural problems. There is a huge patchwork of provision there. Some of it is registered and inspected, so it has a level of quality control, but much of the weakest is not, and there are no neat cut-offs.
A school puts two children in a volunteer-run community garden for one afternoon a week. That would be best viewed as part of the school’s educational model, and the school would be accountable for the child’s experience. However, if those same children are at the garden four days a week and are barely attending school, it is unrealistic to ignore the fact that the gardens become the children’s main source of education —though it is clearly an incomplete education—and that school registrations become a fiction, perhaps to avoid recording an exclusion.
It is often assumed that alternative provision is or should be a brief stint to prepare a child for reintegration into a mainstream school. However, the reality is that few children who move into alternative provision will successfully reintegrate. Hardly any such children take their GCSEs in a mainstream school. AP needs to be seen as a mode of education, not just as respite care.
Then there is provision for children with psychological problems, such as school refusal. Again, unregistered provision is often born out of excellent local initiatives. If a child makes use of such a programme for a short period as part of a plan to help them acclimatise to a suitable school, direct oversight might be overkill. However, if it becomes a de facto permanent placement, it has become that child’s main place of education and it needs to work to the same standards as other schools.
As has been touched on, there are programmes for children who are home-educated, including sports, music, art and other worthwhile activities. Parents are entitled to home-educate, and sports, music and art are all part of a rounded education, but, if an organisation is running five different programmes, one each day, and a child attends all of them, the reality is that, at that point, the organisation is best viewed in the round as having the characteristics of a school—or at least an independent education institution—in taking responsibility when parents are not present for a large part of the week. It is hard to see why such an entity should sit outside the legal framework that protects children’s education and safeguarding.
Finally, I need to talk about illegal schools. It is depressing that they exist, and even more depressing that some of them operate knowingly and intentionally outside the law. Ofsted has a small budget to investigate suspected illegal schools and to warn those that are outside the law that they must register with the Department for Education. It has successfully prosecuted proprietors of such schools, at least one of them twice; I should day that I do not think any of those prosecutions related to a Jewish-affiliated institution. Current legislation just is not equipped to deal with bad-faith operators. It dates back to a time when it was almost unimaginable that a school that had omitted to register would not do so when it was pointed out.
It has been extraordinarily easy for operators to sidestep the law. There is a kind of artificial separation. An operator running multiple illegal institutions, teaching the same group of children in one location in the morning then bussing them to another location to be taught in the afternoon, may claim that they are separate institutions and that neither reaches the threshold to be considered as a school, but, clearly, the reality is that it is a single school. That is why I support my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 427B. There needs to be a sensible ability to take a holistic perspective so that avoidance does not readily happen.
We have had a lot of debate about institutions that rely on the fact that children are not being taught subjects such as English and mathematics, but only an exclusively religious programme, to say that they are not schools. It is a shocking fact that there are British citizens reaching adulthood without the most basic education that they need in order to play their full part in British society and the workplace, if they choose to do so, as adults. They may not choose that, but pre-emptively taking away their capacity to do so should concern us deeply. It seems unreasonable that an institution that is part of such a model should want to be outside the scope of any meaningful scrutiny. We know from IICSA and from many previous cases that, sadly, a strong religious affiliation is not a guarantee that children will be completely protected from the kinds of harm that adults can inflict on them.
It is worrying that so many people do not want to acknowledge or discuss this problem and its tensions. There is widespread hesitancy to venture into sensitive areas linked to faith or ethnicity; we have seen this where other issues have arisen recently. I can see the temptation of offering an opt-out, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Lucas, yet I also know that the better path is to carry on working to try to find models that do a better job of reconciling the desires of a faith group and the important rights of children. I know that many of my colleagues, including my noble friends Lord Nash, Lord Agnew, Lady Morgan and Lady Barran, worked hard in their time in government to try to find those next steps and better accommodations. An opt-out is just not, in my view, sensible or workable. At the point when this country has become simply a patchwork of self-segregated communities, cut off from each another, there will not be much of a nation left.
I note that there is an evolving picture internationally around the same issues that we have been seeing in schools in England. As chief inspector, I talked to my counterparts in countries such as France and Sweden, which are seeing parallel trends. This is something that needs discussing, not just domestically but internationally. I believe that it is impossible—and, indeed, undesirable—to try to make tidy regulatory categories covering every kind of provision outside school. They quickly become obsolete, as would any micro-precise thresholds.
Overall, the extension of scope in Clause 36 is important and justified, but it is also important that the regulations that are made are clear and well understood, and that enforcement is adequately funded, with enough resource for Ofsted to carry on its investigatory work and for the DfE to act where it should. There has to be a high level of transparency about the work, to help stave off pre-emptive attempts to brand this difficult work as biased or unfair. We must carry on doing all that we can to make the intrinsically knotty subject matter here fully discussable.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I strongly support Amendment 427C and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who made the two opening speeches. All the speeches today have shone a light on what many people in the country are not aware of.
I was a councillor in Hackney many years ago and I knew this community. What was most interesting to me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, was that he was able to explain how much effort has gone into improving the whole question of safeguarding. That must be something that we are all concerned about in any school.
For me, this is very clearly about the fact that the yeshivas are not schools. They are no more a school than the Sunday school that I went to for many years as a youngster. That was nothing to do with the church—it was a separate Sunday school, set up by some very nice people in the countryside, and I went every Sunday afternoon for many years. It was not a school in the sense of education; it was about religion and understanding the history of Christianity and all those kinds of things. I can see exactly what the yeshivas are doing.
We might think that Governments cannot possibly be misled, but it seems that, under Clause 35 of the Bill, yeshivas will be regulated as if they are schools. That is wrong. We have heard about what goes on there. We know that it is a place for young men to engage with their heritage and build their spiritual and ethical character. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, mentioned some of the young men she had spoken to who were unhappy about what is happening. I am sure that if we went around many of our schools and spoke to young men about what was going on in their school, we would always find somebody who has a real problem, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with what is happening overall.
It seems to me—maybe the Minister can tell me I am wrong—that there has been very little engagement prior to the drafting of the Bill with the community about the central role that the yeshivas play in the communities. Was there any real discussion? It seems to me, having listened to what people are saying, that we have underlying support for safeguarding. Surely, if the department had spent time talking to the community to know what was going on in those schools, and talking to the local authority, this could have been solved without such an amendment and without having to go through this whole debate. It could have been solved by a bit of common sense and good will, with people sitting around a table.
I hope that that might still happen, and we can find a sensible and practical solution that would allow the yeshiva schools to stay open. I am calling them schools but I am not implying that they are schools; as I said earlier, they are not schools in the sense that we all know what a school is. We could then address remaining concerns about safeguarding and the links between home education and yeshivas. We must try to settle this; otherwise, we will see them all closing and we will be left with a much more difficult situation to handle.
Recognising just how many people feel strongly about this, I urge the Minister to look at this again and come back on Report with wording that may be slightly different and more satisfactory to the department. This really needs to be looked at.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I had not anticipated speaking until the next group. I declare an interest as a senior research fellow at Regent’s Park College, Oxford, which is researching freedom of religion or belief in the UK. A number of Peers have entered into talking about this human right without, I think, fully appreciating its impact.
In relation to the “institution”, as it is referred to in the amendment, if this amendment were accepted, can the Minister outline where it would sit with the other out-of-school settings work that is going on, because I think it would sit as an out-of-school setting? I do not think that they are charities, otherwise they would already have safeguarding responsibilities. Could there, in some respects, be good unintended consequences of the amendment, in that we take an out-of-school setting and bring it into the safeguarding world, with DBS checks, et cetera?
Freedom of religion or belief is not an absolute right. It is sometimes put into a debate as if it cannot be curtailed. It is important to remember that the children to whom we have been referring also have the right to freedom of religion or belief. Parents have the right to bring up their children in the faith that they wish them to have, but that does not mean an immersive experience that does not allow a child to exercise their right to know, through a broad and balanced curriculum, about the world and nation that they are growing up in and about other faiths and humanist and other belief systems. This is a very difficult world—not just in the Jewish context but in the context of Christianity, other faiths and some atheistic traditions—in which to try to shield a child from knowledge so that they never choose a different type of Jewishness or a different religion for themselves.
I hope that, whatever situation we end up in with regard to these schools, we bear in mind that these children have freedom of religion or belief and should have an education that enables them to exercise that right fully. I hope that that will be part of the considerations and the engagement with the community, as we come to a position on these institutions. It is accepted in the amendment that they are institutions of some category, not some kind of faith space.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I was head of a Church of England primary school and my daughter went to a Jewish school. I am conscious that, in my home city of Liverpool, one-third of the schools are faith schools. I want to reflect on what various noble Lords have said, and I want to speak very carefully because I am still considering everything that has been said. I have found it, at times, quite challenging.
Let me deal with an issue that I do not find challenging, which is my Amendment 451. Children who are suspended from school are the responsibility of the school, while pupils who are permanently excluded from school are the responsibility of the local authority. Secondary schools that have pupil referral units, called PRUs, are often able to put suspended students into the referral unit. I have visited many of them and been astounded and impressed by how they have supported students. Instances of expulsion—permanent exclusions, as we now say—are very limited.
Let us remember that young people who are permanently excluded from school often have severe behavioural issues, which perhaps could have been picked up when they were younger and perhaps could have been supported in a different way. Many of them have severe behavioural problems.
Many—quite a high percentage, I think, and certainly over 80%—have special needs. They are the very young people who should not be excluded from school; they should be in school but, clearly, schools have a right to teach, and pupils have a right to learn. When they are excluded from school, local authorities may put them into what we call alternative provision. There are two types of alternative provision. There is alternative provision that is registered, which means that it is inspected from time to time by Ofsted. I have visited two alternative providers and been incredibly impressed by what I have seen. Many local authorities choose to put permanently excluded pupils not into a registered provider but into an unregistered one. Why? Because it is much, much cheaper. That is no way to treat a young person, no way at all.
Some of those unregistered providers do not keep a register. The young person comes and goes. There are no proper qualifications among the so-called teaching staff, et cetera, et cetera. As I have mentioned in debates in this Chamber, that is not to say that some unregistered providers are not very good, but it is still no way to treat a young person. This amendment is very simple. All it says is that any alternative provider—those schools or units, because when we talk about a school, we are probably talking about a school of 20 pupils—should be registered. We should know that there are qualified staff, qualified support and quality learning for those pupils. We should know that all the things we expect take place and that there will be, from time to time, Ofsted reports on those schools. I have looked at many of those Ofsted reports and been incredibly impressed by the work those alternative providers do. That is the simple request: that we should not allow the most vulnerable children and young people in our society to be treated in this way. They have the right to go to a proper institution—a proper school.
I now come to the other amendments. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris—it used to be “I agree with Nick.” I am sorry, I am not comparing the noble Baroness with Nick Clegg. I want children—young people—to have an education, whether in a school or, in some cases, at home, which is broad and balanced, which equips them for life, which they enjoy and which brings out their best qualities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, does not mind me mentioning this, but I remember that several years ago, she came to me in a discussion about a particular faith school—a Christian school, actually—where the pupils were treated in quite a challenging way. One boy, for example, happened to tell the school that he was gay, so he was pushed into a cupboard and locked in there until he came out and announced that he was not gay. I am not going to mention the school, but I think it employed its own inspection regimes. Because it was in charge of its own inspection regimes, that company—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am not sure that the noble Lord is remembering the situation accurately, so it would be best in future to consult before referring to something that I think was many years ago. I say that with no disrespect to the noble Lord’s comments.
Lord Storey (LD)
I raise it only because it is a shocking condemnation of a schooling situation where young people cannot be themselves or have a proper education. I respect different religions and their rights; as I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish school where there are Hebrew lessons, the children are taken out at various times and there is a whole range of different faiths. The children’s faiths are respected and there are opportunities for them to develop learning and an understanding of their faith. That is all good and positive.
I do not have an issue with any particular faith bringing up children and young people in that faith, but I do want to see those children and young people have schooling that is registered and/or inspected. That is all we should ask for as a society. Anything that does not carry on the tradition of this country—one of the most successful multicultural and multifaith nations in the world—or develop what we believe in, we need to legislate against.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my comments brief. We have had an excellent debate and these Benches support the aims of this clause: to ensure that children learn in settings, where they provide all or the majority of a child’s education, that are safe and regulated. I have a couple of technical points of clarification that might win the prize today for the most boring question asked of the Minister. I confess that I have read and reread the Bill and the policy notes and still do not quite follow it.
Section 92 of the Education and Skills Act 2008, which this clause amends, includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. I am unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they do not form part of the revised definition. If the Minister wants to write, that would be fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer that I have missed.
The regulation-making powers in this clause, if I have understood them correctly, are much wider than those in the 2008 Act. New Sections 92(3)(c) and 92(3)(d) seem to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without proper scrutiny in Parliament. I suspect the Minister will tell me that it will use the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised unregistered alternative provision, which benefits from neither safeguarding nor educational oversight, in his Amendment 427. It is extraordinary, as other noble Lords have reflected, that, rather like unregulated provision, we put very vulnerable children and young people in unregistered provision without any safeguards available. I agree with him that we would ideally have no unregistered provision but, at a minimum—this also applies to Amendment 451 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey—we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings, even if children were going there for a short period. There is always the infamous “Dave the car mechanic” with whom some children apparently spend time. We should at least have appropriate safeguarding checks and I am interested in what the Minister thinks about that.
I now turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns with their religious tradition. The Minister and the whole House have heard both sides of the argument very clearly today and the valid concerns that have been raised by faith groups about the impact of the Government’s legislation on their communities. Those were eloquently put in particular by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman—who I promise we will still listen to however much he speaks.
I close by aligning myself with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Coates. We want to retain what I think the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, described as the “precious” tolerance that many of us, including my own family, have benefited from this country welcoming us with, but also to ensure that the rights of every child are upheld. I hope very much that the Minister will put her not inconsiderable abilities to the task.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, first, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that she is right—those questions were very boring, but I am sure that they were none the less important. I will write to her to respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate, however, was not boring, and was also important. I hope that I will be able to respond to the wide range of issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part of what we need to wrestle with in taking this legislation forward.
This group of amendments impact Clause 36 and concern which settings are and are not brought into the system of regulation found in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It might therefore be helpful if I first outline the intent of Clause 36. As I say, the clause concerns the settings regulated by that framework. Among other things, regulated settings are required to register with the Secretary of State and be subject to regular inspection against prescribed standards. At present, that framework applies to independent schools.
Clause 36 expands this framework further. Under this clause, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if they provide full-time education to five or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such children with an EHCP or one who is looked after by a local authority. This change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during, but not necessarily only during, the school day, and we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected of them.
For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused on the issue of Haredi children and yeshivas. I will respond to that, but in doing so, I reiterate the point that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is just wrong in suggesting that this legislation is aimed at yeshivas. As I have said, this measure is about ensuring that, where settings are providing a full-time education to children, they are registered and subject to regular inspection and meet certain standards. I accept that there has been concern among the community, and I will respond to that now.
Let me be clear that this measure does not presuppose an inherent problem with a child being educated at a yeshiva or the quality of home education. It is about ensuring the suitability of settings that provide full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define “full-time” and “engagement”, we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they run needs to register with the Secretary of State. It is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that I very much doubt that she attended Sunday school for 18 hours per week.
I emphasise that in expecting institutions operating for those hours to register, there is no requirement in the Independent School Standards, or in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a wholly secular education. There is no requirement for them to deliver the national curriculum, for example. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum. These standards are well-established minimum standards which already apply to many registered settings that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting. We will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings. In doing so, I assure noble Lords that there has been considerable engagement with the Haredi community up to this point—I have met with the Yeshiva Liaison Committee and my officials have ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague Stephen Morgan met the yeshiva community on these issues and we undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it.
It is right that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend these settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection. For that reason, we believe that Clause 36 should form part of the Bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble Lords in this debate.
There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework. Both Amendments 427A and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, via Amendment 427A, appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 Act. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, in introducing Amendment 427C, seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others, that in this country we are rightly tolerant of faith education. I remember the arguments that my noble friend Lady Morris had in defending that principle when we served in the previous Government in the Department for Education. We should be proud as a country of the many faith schools that operate. That principle has been supported by successive Governments, and in each of those Governments we have seen support for the development of new faith schools as well as for the protection of those that existed. I hope no noble Lords believe that this is in some way an attack on the ability to deliver a religious education, either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home-educate their child. This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate, I entirely understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Blackstone, are saying. If children are not receiving their entitled education, we need to do something about that. That is part of the basic contract, as I understand it, between the state and any education system. The child has a right to an education, and if for whatever reason it is not being provided, that is not tolerable.
It is surely important for the Government to indicate to the Haredi community and others which way forward they favour. I hope I am not leaping too far ahead in my understanding of where the Government want to go, but are they preferring to say that they would like to see yeshivas registered as schools but they will make sure that the regulations that apply to yeshivas do not require them to violate their religious principles in the way that they teach? In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we might normally require a school to provide by way of education, so that yeshivas are schools but are allowed to teach in a way which is consistent with the Torah and with their belief? That is one way forward.
The other way forward is that proposed by the right reverend Prelate and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments in the Minister’s reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education and which provide only religious instruction. In other words, the children’s education has to happen somewhere else; there has to be another space, another institution, which is providing that education. The religious space is not regarded as a school, because there is another space which is regarded as home education or a school. If there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child’s education, why should the yeshiva, or whatever, be regarded as a school too, because the function of education and school is being provided elsewhere?
First, I would like the Minister’s guidance on whether we are looking at a structure that aims to take yeshivas out of the definition of a school and makes it clear how a child’s education is being provided—whether that is the preferred way forward—or a structure that makes it possible for education consistent with the Torah to be provided within a regulated school. We owe this community a clear way forward, whereby they can focus on what they need to do and where they need to get to, and so those of us who support them can say, “You need to do this”, or “Let’s have a go at the Government because they are asking too much”, so we can have a dialogue on this issue. At the moment, we have a blank as to the Government’s intentions, and that really is not fair or satisfactory.
I really hope that the Government will find that answer. If the Minister wants to reply now, I shall understand, but otherwise I would be very grateful if she wrote to me giving a clear view of the Government’s preferred way forward. What is their opening offer? What would they like to see happen? The Bill as it stands just says, “Destroy these communities”. That is not the impression I get from what the Minister has said, so what is the other way forward? But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start debate on the next group of amendments, I want to make a couple of points. The Committee will have to adjourn before 2 o’clock so that we can get the Chamber ready for Oral Questions. If noble Lords want to make the Whip very happy, they will speak very swiftly so we can conclude this group of amendments before 2 o’clock. If not, I will have to adjourn mid-group—it is quite a huge group—and then we will continue after Oral Questions this afternoon. I remind all noble Lords to be brief in their comments on this group.
Amendment 427BA
Baroness Barran
“(d) an Academy, University Technical College or studio school;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to include academies, University Technical Colleges and studio schools as excepted institutions for the purposes of the new section 92 in the Education and Skills Act 2008.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I had better start with an apology to the Whips: my comments are a bit detailed, but they are quite detailed amendments—but I am still pleased to introduce them.
We on these Benches support the aims of this clause to ensure that children learn in safe and regulated settings, that illegal schools either register or are closed down, and that institutions that do not meet the independent school standards are required to do so in an effective way. However, we have two sets of concerns that I shall try to set out. First, they lie with the apparent wish of the Secretary of State to regulate academies in multiple different ways: through the funding agreement that the former Minister argued in Committee in the other place, in relation to Clause 36, was sufficient; through the new powers in Clause 49, which we have yet to debate; and now through the additional powers in Clause 37.
Secondly, our worries reflect the fact that the details of the revised standards will be set out in regulations. Effectively, independent schools are flying blind as to what these new obligations will be. Under Section 94 of the 2008 Act, the Secretary of State was authorised to make regulations prescribing standards in relation to specific matters. These regulations have always bound proprietors of academies, as they are independent schools.
Clause 36 introduces additional subsections into Section 94 of the 2008 Act, and these include a standard
“by reference to whether or not the proprietor of an independent educational institution has regard to guidance issued, or a document published, by the Secretary of State from time to time”.
So, until we see the regulations that are proposed to be published in relation to that standard, we cannot see what the consequence of this change would be. Will the noble Baroness clarify what new obligations, if any, the proprietor of an academy would have to comply with, as distinct from “have regard to”, in new guidance given by the DfE? It would be helpful if the Government could be clear about the changes to the current burdens on the proprietors of academies. My Amendment 429A would remove these types of schools from the standard-setting powers in Clause 37.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 432A and 434 in my name concern enforcement provisions. They are critical elements of the Bill that seek to address the harm caused by unregistered educational settings.
Let me begin by referring to the experience of a woman whom I shall call Dina, a mother in the Haredi community in Stamford Hill. Like other Haredi women, Dina received a broad and balanced education in a Haredi school. She wants the same for her son, but boys are expected to be protected from secular education, and Dina found herself with no genuine choice but to send her son to an unregistered educational establishment called a yeshiva. The curriculum that Dina’s son studied was exclusively religious, with no provision for any secular subjects, including important subjects such as English and mathematics. This was not parental choice in any meaningful sense; it was the result of communal pressure within a context that often leaves families with no real alternatives. These are the institutions that Clause 36 rightly seeks to bring within the scope of regulation.
I accept that there are parents who genuinely choose to send their sons to yeshivas, but let us be clear: they are schools by any functional definition, and the Bill makes the necessary statutory clarification to ensure that they are treated as such for regulatory purposes. Once within the scope of regulation, they will be a viable option for parents who wish to make use of their services. However, boys in these environments often attend for very long hours, including Sundays. That secular education can be delivered at evenings and weekends in the home is, in almost every case, entirely implausible, so there is no adequate home education for boys who are attending these institutions, often from 7.30 am until late in the evening and on Sundays.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, whose name is also on the amendment, and I offered to visit two yeshivas, but the offer was rejected. There was therefore no transparency in that respect. However, we have met young men who attended such yeshivas. We were struck by their resilience but also deeply saddened by the obstacles they faced in accessing the education that was denied to them in childhood. I am deeply disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who is not in her place, was so disparaging about the comments that they have made; they were genuine, and the young men were deeply concerned.
It is important to note that these young people do not wish to abandon their religion or community; they seek to live full lives as both observant Jews and fully educated citizens. That is a goal that all in this Committee should affirm, respect and support. They also raised serious safeguarding issues in relation to the excessive use of corporal punishment in the yeshivas. We should be concerned about that, too.
The Bill adopts a two-pronged strategy. First, Clause 31 introduces a home education register to provide transparency and ensure that those genuinely providing home education can continue to do so, and Clause 32 strengthens school attendance orders where that education is not genuinely being delivered.
Secondly, Clause 36 enables regulatory oversight of independent institutions operating outside the law. Our amendments strengthen the enforcement mechanisms required to make these provisions truly effective. These provisions are not about targeting responsible home educators; they are about ensuring that no child, whatever their background, falls through the cracks. Unfortunately, these boys are falling through the cracks in a big way.
I turn now to the amendments themselves. Amendment 432A creates an offence for landlords, property owners and letting agents who knowingly facilitate the operation of an illegally unregistered educational institution. It also creates a further offence for assisting or encouraging such activity in any other manner. This is a proportionate response to a practical challenge. In many cases, it is not immediately clear who owns or operates these institutions, but it is clear who owns the buildings. This amendment aims to create a disincentive to any individual or organisation from profiting from unlawful activity that places children at risk, either directly or indirectly.
Amendment 434 grants His Majesty’s inspectors the power to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools. This is a necessary power to prevent disguised compliance and to enable timely safeguarding action. Delay can perpetuate harm.
The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities; they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education, irrespective of cultural or religious context. I greatly agree with everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Berridge, said in their speeches to a previous group of amendments.
I acknowledge the important contribution by the noble Lord opposite, who referenced Article 2 of the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is indeed vital to uphold the right of parents to educate their children in line with their beliefs, but that right is not absolute, and that is what we must all accept. It must be balanced with the state’s duty to ensure that every child receives an education that meets minimum standards of safety and quality. That duty is enforced by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Bill does not constrain religious practice; many Haredi children already attend registered schools, where they receive both religious and secular education, and they are frequently within the maintained sector. That might be relevant to the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked earlier.
As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, stated at Second Reading, no cultural or religious norm should be permitted to override the fundamental rights of children. I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who engaged on this issue with considerable care and conviction, but I urge the Minister to consider these amendments seriously. They seek only to ensure that all children in this country, without exception, can access the education that they deserve.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My amendments are different from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and narrow in scope. I refer to my Amendments 429 and 433, which relate to independent schools and which I have brought forward in close association with my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who is, like me, a strong champion of independent schools.
I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council, which gives expression at national level for the collective views of its 1,423 member schools, where around 80% of the pupils in the independent sector are educated. Indeed, I have a double interest to declare, since I am the current president of the Independent Schools Association, which is one of the council’s constituent bodies and has nearly 800 members, many of them small in size and cherished by the local communities they serve so well—particularly by making provision for a wide range of special needs.
It is no secret that independent schools have their differences—deep differences—with the current Government, principally because of the imposition of VAT on school fees. However, I am glad to say that this Bill does not arouse deep anxiety among members of the Independent Schools Council. There is no clash of fundamentally opposed principles as over VAT. My two amendments seek to explore the possibilities of adjusting and modifying the Government’s proposals in a number of respects, rather than taking serious issue with them.
I should add that the points in question have been the subject of careful discussion between Department for Education officials and senior staff of the Independent Schools Council. The essential aim of my probing amendments is to secure on the public record a firm indication of the Government’s response to issues that have been raised in those discussions without seeking to contest overall policy.
Amendment 429, for example, accepts that the Secretary of State should have a power to require independent schools to “have regard”—the phrase used in the Bill—to guidance issued from time to time by the Department for Education. That is entirely appropriate in order to ensure, for example, that all children have equal safeguarding protection and equal education in moral and cultural development. The amendment recognises that, in such areas, it is reasonable for a Secretary of State to place duties on independent schools by way of guidance. However, would it not also be appropriate to ensure that a Secretary of State would not seek to limit a school’s independence, in the words of the amendment,
“with respect to admissions, the curriculum, or examinations”?
Those are the three vital components of independence in education, subject to qualifications specified in the amendment. It would surely not be unreasonable to expect that a Secretary of State who prescribes a new standard that independent schools must meet would lay before Parliament a statement asserting that those three vital components of independence would not be compromised. A similar statement would also be appropriate when subsequent guidance is issued.
As it stands, the Bill provides that any new standard to which independent schools would be required to adhere would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Thereafter, though, guidance issued under that standard would be legally binding on independent schools without any defined role for Parliament. My amendment would give Parliament a role. Members in both Houses would be able to bring forward motions on individual documents and pieces of guidance if they wished to do so. Effective power for Ministers needs to be balanced with effective protection for independent schools. Above all, no future Government should be able to limit their operational independence by expanding the purposes for which guidance can be used; that is what Amendment 429 would achieve.
Amendment 433 would address a single, specific problem that independent special schools frequently encounter. There are 128 such schools within the membership of the Independent Schools Council and another 600 that are not council members. Children admitted to these schools to receive support for one or more special needs are often found to have other needs as well—a point on which my noble friend Lady Barran touched. A child admitted to a school specialising in dyslexia, for example, may be found to have trouble learning to read as part of a wider disorder such as ADHD. Under the Bill, a special school that responds to these circumstances by making provision for additional need or needs will be required to make what is known as a material change application. It is that to which my noble friend Lady Barran made specific allusion.
The trouble is that, under Clause 39, such applications will need to be made before action is taken to meet a child’s extra needs. This is obviously impractical. A school that is deeply concerned to assist such pupils fully will want to make immediate arrangements to cover all of their needs. Amendment 433 would provide a simple remedy and set at rest the concern of schools finding themselves in these circumstances that they may be in breach of the law. It would give such schools two academic terms to make a material change application. This is a common-sense proposal that I hope the Government will consider. Plainly, some change to the Bill seems to be needed in order to avoid inflicting difficulty on independent special schools.
A misunderstanding could perhaps have arisen here. In some places, the Bill gives the impression that a school will need to make an application for material change only if it wishes to alter its main purpose. The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill refer to schools that are
“specially organised to make special educational provision”.
Does this mean that an independent special school will need to make a material change application only if it changes the type of SEND provision that it is specially organised to make? Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point when she responds to the issues that my two probing amendments have raised.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 432A and 434. I spoke about this issue in our debate on the previous set of amendments; I do not wish to rehearse that but, briefly, I wish to link to what the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, said in her contribution to the previous debate. She described a situation in which people are not co-operating with Ofsted and the inspectorate to make sure that unregulated schools can be regulated. Amendment 432A would, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, mean that action can be taken in relation to the people who own the building, which is usually clear, rather than the people who run the building, as you can see how that might be evaded.
Secondly, the other amendment would give Ofsted the power to search premises when it goes there, rather than being sent away and, presumably, having to get a warrant in order to go back and look round. I very much support those amendments and tag my comments on to those made in the previous debate.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, it is approaching 2 pm. I suggest that, unless the next speaker can finish his or her contribution by then, we take a short break to allow the House to prepare for Oral Questions; and that the debate on this amendment be adjourned until after Questions.
Nuclear Regulatory System
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the interim report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published on 11 August, what steps they are taking to improve the UK’s nuclear regulatory system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the report identifies barriers to timely delivery of nuclear projects, including duplication and inefficiencies in environmental and planning assessments. The Government welcome the interim findings and continue to work with the regulators to understand opportunities to streamline the regulation of nuclear projects while upholding high security and safety standards. We are already taking steps to update the UK’s planning framework and aim to designate a new draft national policy statement on nuclear energy generation, called EN-7, before the end of 2025. The task force’s final recommendation will be published in autumn 2025 and the Government will respond in due course.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer and welcome him to his new role. He will know, from defence, how we have been producing small nuclear reactors for over half a century, and we were world leaders in nuclear energy. Fortunately, the Government have now made a decision on small modular reactors, after years of dither and delay by both Governments. We cannot permit further regulatory delay to progress. As he has identified, that is clearly the message of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, but can he be much more specific about when it will actually get on with it? “In due course” is not sufficient.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I should have read the Answer I read out more carefully; I thought that when I read out “in due course”. The serious point, I say to my noble friend, is that the report outlines the fact that recommendations are needed. Those recommendations will be made in autumn 2025. The Government are already discussing, across government, how they should respond to that. There will be a task force, there will be cross-government working to ensure, as my noble friend says, that the report is not just something we all read and agree with, but something we read and act on. It is our desire to come forward with concrete steps. We will bring those forward, and my noble friend will be able to see them for himself, but speed is of the essence.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the main finding of the interim report is the need for a firm steer from the Government to establish a strategy for nuclear safety, because the current policy does not address a strategic direction on safety management. As the report recommends an immediate start on this, and the publication of a consultation paper alongside the task force’s final report, will the Minister commit today to such a timetable?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, we will do everything as speedily as possible. We will move forward on this. I say to the noble Lord: safety is of paramount importance, of course it is, and there cannot be any compromise on that, but we have to get on with this. In the mid-1990s, 25% of our electricity was generated through nuclear; it is now 15%. Even with the new power stations that have been agreed, unless we do more it will go down. That is not good enough; we have to do better than that—with the small modular reactors that my noble friend talked about and with the new power station that was recently agreed by my right honourable friend Ed Miliband MP. There cannot be any compromise on safety, but neither can there be the situation where, time after time, decisions are delayed and nothing happens. The consequence of that is that our economy suffers and jobs are lost. That is not good enough and we are going to do something about it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we should concentrate on and give priority to building smaller nuclear reactors, as the Minister’s noble friend has suggested, which can be built in two years, rather than building the gigawatt giants, which apparently we are dedicated to doing, which take years to build and are far more politically risky and far more likely to raise political dangers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree up to a point with what the noble Lord has said. Our big power stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley Point C are part of the answer. He is quite right to say that alongside that the small modular reactors are necessary. He will know that Rolls-Royce has three which have gone through the generic design assessment. Two additional GDA requesting parties have met the threshold to enter and there are others at other stages of the process. He is quite right to point out the need for small modular reactors, which can be done more quickly and are part of the answer to our energy needs, but nuclear has to be a part of that. Small modular reactors will be a part of it, alongside the big stations such as Sizewell and Hinkley.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. The report rightly mentions the planning system environmental regulations, as the Minister said, as a barrier to the nuclear rollout. Of course, we have a legislative vehicle for any changes going through your Lordships’ House at the moment in the form of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to really join the dots between those two things and ensure that we take the opportunity with that Bill to ensure that it delivers on some of those recommendations? If we have to wait for a future planning Bill to come through, we simply cannot afford that time.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with that and the Government are responding to that request. We are not waiting to legislate through the planning Bill. EN-6, the current framework within which these decisions are made, listed eight sites designated for nuclear applications. EN-7, as I mentioned in my Answer to my noble friend, will be published as a draft, as I understand it, by the end of the year and will soon be put into place. That will change those planning regulations to ensure that any site can be used to be apply for a nuclear designation. Of course, it will have to go through the planning process and be subject to all the safety regulations, but it will open up a number of sites for people who want to have small modular reactors or other nuclear provision—sites that, at the moment, they are excluded from applying for. I think that is good progress.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend come back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about SMRs as opposed to major gigawatt developments? Does he accept that we need both and that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is quite wrong in his criticism of Sizewell C? It is going to supply 6% of our electricity generation. It is a replica of Hinkley Point C so a lot of the risks are being ironed out. We should be giving our support to this fantastic development.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and in answering my noble friend, of course it requires the big nuclear power stations such as Sizewell C and Hinkley C, as my noble friend has said. They are clearly part of the answer to providing our energy needs through nuclear and these big power stations. Alongside that, of course, we need the small modular reactors. They can be put in place more quickly and can be a part of the contribution to ensuring that we can meet our energy needs. Rolls-Royce, Holtec, GE Hitachi and a number of others are all trying to take this forward and, as my noble friend says, they are part of the answer, as well as these big stations.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this interim report. It highlights the need for international collaboration to standardise and harmonise industry and regulatory approaches, the costs and time delays of which can be terminal to many innovative nuclear technologies and projects. We speak a lot about SMRs, but we must not forget the perhaps more interesting AMR technologies coming soon. It is imperative that the UK leads this effort, given the vast power demands of tech companies which really want to work with the UK. Who from the Government will lead the charge alongside our excellent chief inspector so that vendors have the trust and confidence they need to create investable projects?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course, the charge will be led by the Government. The Government believe in nuclear and in international collaboration. The Secretary of State, along with others, will provide a whole-of-government response. We welcome the support of industry, the Opposition and across the House and this Parliament for achieving that. Of course, it will be what we do nationally, but there will be international collaboration as well. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this because together we can sort out this energy problem, deliver much more quickly, and ensure that our planning process supports delivery to meet the needs that we have for energy, whereas sometimes it gets in the way.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that if this Government want a renaissance of nuclear power, they must also take reasonable measures to deal with the historical legacy of nuclear waste? What plans do the Government have to address the problem now that the Treasury has described the plans for a geological deposit facility as unworkable?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Government understand the need to deal with nuclear waste. If you look at defence, which I primarily have responsibility for, there is a huge amount of work going on with respect to the dismantling of waste from nuclear submarines. We are looking at a whole range of options to do with that and we recognise the importance of dealing with waste.
Child Poverty Strategy
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Liddle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards developing their child poverty strategy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government will publish a strategy in the autumn to deliver measures to tackle the structural and root causes of child poverty. As a significant downpayment ahead of strategy publication, we have already taken substantive action across major drivers of child poverty. This includes an expansion of free school meals, a £39 billion investment in social and affordable housing and a commitment to roll out Best Start family hubs in every local authority.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I very much welcome what the Minister has said about producing a strategy and the actions in the face of economic difficulties that the Government have already taken, but does the Minister accept that further progress is going to be challenging, given the need to make the benefits bill fiscally sustainable, not least because of the legacy we inherited on PIP, disability and SEND? Does she agree that, in addition to the priority for getting NEETs and people on sick benefits back into work where we can, tackling child poverty by putting extra money into the purses and wallets of our poorest families remains a key government priority?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouragement on what the Government have done so far. It is significant. As he knows, we have already committed to extending free school meals to all children from households in receipt of universal credit from September next year. That alone will lift 100,000 children across England out of poverty by the end of this Parliament and put £500 back in those families’ pockets. That is really significant. But there is so much more to do; my noble friend is quite right about that. The child poverty strategy in the autumn will set out measures across the piece on dealing with child poverty.
My noble friend mentioned the need to make our system sustainable, and he is quite right. There is no doubt that the social security system is not fit for purpose. It is not serving those who need to depend on it and it is not serving the taxpayer, but we have plans to get involved in making sure the system works well. Getting people into good jobs makes all the difference. It will also lift out of poverty the children in those families, so I look forward to doing that and I hope the whole House will support us.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, as the Government are considering their child poverty strategy, can I urge them, particularly in the light of the comments made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about constraining the benefits bill, to retain the two-child benefit cap? This is a very important measure to ensure that families on benefits face the same choices as those who are not. If it were removed, rather than being a measure of fairness, it would be unfair to those who work hard, pay their taxes and strive to live within their means.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will not be commenting on the future, because the child poverty strategy will look at the ways in which the Government will make changes, not just to the benefits system but across the piece, to tackle child poverty. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that the benefits system has so many flaws in it at the moment that we have had to go in and try to look at the way it works across the piece. We have had to recognise, for example, that the way we support people who are sick or disabled does not serve either them or the taxpayer. We are not supporting families in the appropriate way. Our job is to try to make the system work for everyone, so that those who can work and support their families do so and those who cannot work will know the state is there to support them. That is our job.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, regarding the two-child benefit and the restriction of it, I was disappointed in the things that the Minister said that the Government are doing. There was no mention of it. There needs to be not only a mention of it but a date for when it will happen. The idea that people in poverty, children in poverty, can wait while the Government pontificate on whether they will produce a change to the two-child benefit cap is a disgrace.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear today that I cannot satisfy the whole House, whichever way I look. I understand the noble Lord’s position on this, but every time he raises it, he accuses the Government of sitting and pontificating and doing nothing. Perhaps he did not hear my last answer. This Government are committed to extending free school meals across the whole of the universal credit spectrum, which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty in this Parliament—and we are going farther. Please can he encourage us in that, not just attack us?
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, removing the two-child benefit cap would significantly impact minority communities, particularly those who have large families and are on low income. This would lead to improved health, education and social outcomes for these children. I am talking about minority community children. You only have to look at places such as Tower Hamlets in London, where child poverty is over 40%. Do the Government have any plans to overcome this and introduce two-child benefits, or to remove the cap?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if I can persuade the Cross Benches and the Bishops to raise it, I will have a full house. I completely understand the wider point that my noble friend makes. There is an issue in this country for larger families who are facing poverty. However, perhaps I can reassure him by pointing out the impact of some of the things we are doing: for example, expanding free school meals to all children in households. Those meals go to each of the children in that household. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million, which is worth another £450 to parents. The Healthy Start scheme supports over 356,000 children. We are extending the household support fund, bringing in a new crisis and resilience fund. All these things help families, and bigger families most of all. I hope that reassures him.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to mention the two-child benefit cap. Can I say how pleased I am to see the Minister in her place? As always, I look forward to working with her. Can she reassure the House that the child poverty strategy will avoid a narrow focus on short-term income measures and instead promote long-term opportunity, resilience and self-reliance for families?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I am very grateful and I agree with her very much indeed on that—I am very glad to be here as well.
She makes a really important point. One of the reasons we have taken our time and been thoughtful about the child poverty strategy is that it cannot ever be just about income transfers. The strategy will be looking across four key themes. Increasing incomes is one of them, but so is reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience for families and looking at better local support, especially in the early years. We must take action across all those if we are to find a way to tackle the scourge of child poverty in this country in a way that builds in structural improvements for the future. She makes an important point.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, my question is also not about the two-child limit, though I am fully supportive of its removal. Can the Minister say something about listening to the voices of children and young people within the formation of the strategy and give some examples of how the voices of children and young people have maybe changed the mind of the Government in their approach?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The task force has engaged astonishingly widely. The Children’s Commissioner was commissioned to do listening events directly with children, to hear their voices. A lot of work has gone on listening to organisations, families and parents, but listening to children describing their own experiences sometimes brings out things that the Government and even those organisations would not have thought of.
In terms of the wider groups, I have been able to do a little bit of this, even though it is not quite in my portfolio. However, the right reverend Prelate’s right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby very kindly invited me up to Derby to meet families at a family hub and to look at what the local authority and the faith groups were doing. Every time this happens, I am blown away by the resilience of individual families and the power of local communities, faith groups and local authorities to work together to make the lives of their communities better. The more we can engage with that and the more we can hear their voices, the better we are going to do this.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the recent Children’s Commissioner’s report identifies, through children as well as their parents, that one of the most difficult things that children in poverty have to put up with is temporary accommodation. Moving accommodation often disrupts their education, because they have to move school. Will the child poverty strategy look at this as seriously as it looks at income?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Children’s Commissioner’s report, as I am sure she knows, made pretty harrowing reading—as it should. If we are going to tackle these questions, we have to look at the reality of children’s lives nowadays. Her point was very well made. The Government are very aware that homelessness levels are far too high and temporary accommodation is not working. That is really clear. We are committed to delivering long-term solutions to ensure that temporary accommodation is sustainable for local authorities and delivers value for money, because a lot of money is going into something that is not doing a good job for the families using it. That is why the spending review made it clear that we want to encourage better investment in temporary accommodation stock up front and announced £950 million in the latest round of the local authority housing fund.
Sickness Benefits: In-person Interviews
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reinstate in-person interviews for all applicants for sickness benefits.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, we already undertake a number of face-to-face health assessments for people applying for sickness benefits. However, as announced in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, we are planning to increase the number of face-to-face assessments while preserving alternative health assessment channels in order to meet the specific needs of people who require a different channel, for example, as a reasonable adjustment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. This problem goes back a long time. I saw in the Times on 28 June that assessors in the department are apparently paid a bonus on interview numbers—the higher the number, the higher their bonus. This may or may not be reasonable but, at a time when there is a need to reduce expenditure on benefits and we know that in-person interviews tend to lead to a stricter application of the rules, would the Minister consider reintroducing in-person interviews before new benefits are awarded or existing benefits are confirmed?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, face-to-face assessments were stopped during Covid, as they clearly could not happen on public health grounds. They resumed in mid-2021, but the fact is that the levels have been left far too low. In the middle of last year, just 7% of assessments were face to face across PIP and the work capability assessment. That said, the assumption that the benefit bill will automatically come down if we change everything to face to face is not straightforward, based on the available evidence. I assure the noble Lord that, as he may know, in our Pathways to Work Green Paper, we committed to doing more face-to-face assessments while preserving alternative health assessment channels, because those who will not be able to do that will need a reasonable adjustment and another alternative. We will increase them as fast as possible and do it in the right way in order to make sure that we can recruit enough people and provide a good service. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord that that is our plan.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am all in favour of face-to-face interviews, but they would be made a lot easier if we had not seen the closure of many jobcentres prior to 2024. In the last round of closures around eight years ago, 11 Jobcentre Plus offices were shut in London alone. Many of those closures contravened the Government’s own guidelines, and it was purely a cost-cutting exercise.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, most assessments are done in assessment centres. Many of those are conducted by providers because we have to have health providers to do them. My noble friend may be glad to know that we have specific, clear rules about what an assessment centre must do. For example, it must be appropriately accessible and reasonably easy to get to—so that someone can get from their transport to the front door—as well as DDA-compliant in terms of ramps and areas of ground-floor space, et cetera. There are specific assessment centres designed to be suited to this purpose.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister expand on the purpose of a face-to-face assessment? Is this to help people get the sickness benefit they want and need, or is it in some way to make it more difficult for people to get sickness benefit? What is the overriding reason for such attendance at an interview?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
There are various ways in which you can do an assessment. The starting point is that assessments can be done on paper where there is clear medical evidence of somebody’s diagnosis and functional needs. Some of them are really straightforward. It may be for somebody who is nearer the end of life or somebody who, for example, engages a lot with a physiotherapist or a rehab team after a stroke or a brain injury, where there is clear evidence and a clear track record. There are other people where there is not any evidence for a range of reasons. In those cases, there would need to be an assessment. It can be done on the telephone, by video or face to face.
There are different reasons for different people. Some people are unable to get to a face-to-face assessment. They may be bed-bound or may suffer from a severe mental health affliction, but they can perhaps do a video interview. Some people prefer face-to-face interviews; they feel that they will be seen better and understood better. Our aim is to try to keep all channels available and to get the right balance, both to make sure that we get the right conditions for the claimant and the right decision for the Government and to make sure that we have all the people we need there in order to try to move as fast as possible on assessments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, how does the Minister explain some of the following statistics, all of which come from government sources? The number of people expected to go on to long-term benefits will rise from 3.3 million to 4.1 million over this Parliament. Some 3,000 people are signing on every day. In our second city, Birmingham, one in four working-age adults is not working. That is higher than it was during the great depression. In those days, it was considered the greatest problem in politics; now, we just shrug. I think it was Charlie Munger who said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”. What does the Minister plan to do to switch the incentives for some of the people who are choosing to go on to benefits when they are capable of working?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that, if the noble Lord tracked those statistics back, he would see when the numbers began to rise—it was not under this Government. I know that he is making not a partisan point but a broader point; I fully accept that.
The good news is that, as the noble Lord may have noticed from the last labour market statistics, for the first time ever, we have managed to stop that growth in economic inactivity related to sickness and disability. We have a long way to go to bring that down. He is absolutely right to raise this as a major issue. We have seen such a significant rise in the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits. Broadly speaking, one in 10 of our working-age population is claiming a sickness or disability benefit, and our population is ageing.
In terms of what we will do, it is partly about incentives. The noble Lord will be aware that we recently changed the incentives in the then Universal Credit Bill. For example, we halved the amount of money that someone gets on the standard allowance for sickness and disability and increased the standard allowance overall to reduce those incentives. The truth is that there will be some people who just do not want to work. There are an awful lot of other people out there who would love to work but either cannot find the right job or do not have the confidence, skills, opportunity or support. Our job is to tackle this on all of those fronts. We are trying to transform the whole of employment support so that it is tailored to give people the chance to get into a job, to move up in a job and to get the skills they need, which will serve them and the British economy.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, the Health Minister has reported concerns about the over-medicalisation of normal human emotions such as sadness and anxiety and the labelling of those as mental health conditions. I am sure that the Minister will know—indeed, I am sure that the whole House will be aware of this—that that is behind much of the rise in the numbers of sickness and disability claims. In the Minister’s excellent work, on which I commend her, in bringing back these face-to-face assessments, will she review the process of assessing these mental health conditions so that this can be targeted at the people who are in genuine and serious need?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is no doubt that there has been a growth in people claiming support and not being in work as a result of mental health conditions, but also because of other conditions as well. There are other clear patterns, such as musculoskeletal conditions and a range of other things. That is partly about changes in our population and about trends in society.
Our job is to invest in trying to tackle those early enough. One thing that the Government have done is invest money in putting mental health support into schools. In the case of young people, let us tackle those questions early. We consulted in the Green Paper about what we will do in future, but we have announced that we are going to have a youth guarantee. We have a Question tomorrow on youth unemployment. For those who are aged 18 to 21 and are perhaps heading for sickness and disability benefits, let us find a transition phase for them where we find out what the challenges are, figure out how we can support them and then, hopefully, get them on to a path. Sadly, some people will never be able to work, but, for many people, the evidence is that good work is good for their physical and mental health—we just need to help them get into it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister set out how increasing in-person assessments, which we on these Benches fully support, will help reduce fraud and error, thus protecting taxpayers’ money, while ensuring another thing that we on these Benches support—that those who can work, do, and those who cannot, get the support they need? Will the Minister encourage her colleagues and the Secretary of State at the DWP to take up the serious and mature offer made by the leader of the Opposition to work with the Government in order to help them cut and reduce benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks an interesting question. I do not know whether it was on her watch but she may remember that, in 2022, under the previous Government, the department ran a trial to evaluate whether health assessments conducted by different channels led to different outcomes—that is, did it matter if you did it by video, on the telephone or face to face? The trial data showed no substantial differences between work capability assessment and PIP award rates, lengths or average amounts.
Having said that, my observation is that that does not tell us whether the outcomes of individual claims were affected by the channels used. Also, at the time, there were so few face-to-face assessments being conducted that I do not think it can tell us whether the move to remote assessments under Covid had an impact on the volume of claims. Of course, behaviour changes over time, too. We have committed to increasing face-to-face assessments while preserving the alternatives; we can look carefully at whether that makes a difference.
On the noble Baroness’s broader point, there may be some way to go before the leader of the Opposition in the Commons gains the trust of her opposite number, given what has happened recently. However, I am always very happy to work with the noble Baroness; we can talk about these things day to day.
Gaza Protests: Anti-terrorism Legislation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following further arrests of people protesting about the situation in Gaza, whether they are reviewing the appropriateness of using anti-terrorism legislation in relation to peaceful protest; and what assessment they have made of the implications for the UK’s international reputation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government currently have no plans to amend the existing legislation. Palestine Action has satisfied the test in the Terrorism Act 2000, having conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage. Some of its members have been charged with serious and violent offences. In passing, I thank the police for their professionalism in policing recent protests. The House should note that there were 17 arrests for assaults on police officers at the demonstration on 6 September, which is totally unacceptable.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
I thank the Minister for his sadly predictable reply. Using terrorism laws on peaceful, elderly protestors is ridiculous. They are no more terrorists than the Minister himself. This absurd misuse of terrorism legislation is deeply damaging to our freedom of speech. Will the Government please stop shooting the messengers in Parliament Square and start listening to their message, which is that Britain is doing nowhere near enough to stop the daily atrocities in Gaza?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord should know that 20,000 people marched in support of Palestine in a recent demonstration, with totally peaceful activity and no arrests. There was no support for and encouragement of the type of activity undertaken by Palestine Action. As Ministers, we received an assessment from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre which said that it meets the tests of the Terrorism Act 2000. Are we to ignore that?
The powers in this legislation mean that to support Palestine Action publicly is to commit an offence. If the police, as they did on 6 September, make judgments to make arrests, those arrests and potential charges will be put by the CPS before the court and an individual will be charged, convicted and sentenced accordingly. It does not matter whether they are elderly or otherwise; the offence is defined very clearly under the Terrorism Act and the threshold for that Act has been met. If I am predictable in saying so, it is because I am fulfilling a duty on behalf of the UK to keep businesses and people safe from violent terrorist activity.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, a perfectly good case can be made for proscribing Palestine Action, and I agree with that decision, but does the Minister know that in this country there has always been discretion not to prosecute in a case where there is no public interest in arresting and prosecuting? Does he not accept that what is happening with the arrest of hundreds of harmless old ladies simply for holding a placard is exactly what the demonstrators want the police to do? They see it as giving valuable positive publicity to their views on Gaza and the survival of the proscribed organisation. Could he at least discuss with the police authorities whether it is really in the public interest to carry on using these massive police resources for what is a counterproductive effect?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The police do have discretion; it is not for Ministers to order arrests or bring forward charges. It is for the police at a local level to interpret the legislation that has been passed overwhelmingly by the House of Commons and this House to proscribe the organisation. I say “proscribe the organisation” because, on advice, the organisation has met those tests.
If people wish to protest in support of Palestine, they can do so. They can march, protest, criticise Israel and make their views known on Palestine, but Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. As the noble Lord is a former Home Secretary, he will know that it is now for the police to make their judgments on that, and for the CPS to decide whether charges should be brought forward and for individuals to be prosecuted accordingly. We have put in place legislation that draws a line in the sand on the actions of Palestine Action. I hope people will not mistakenly support those actions while still supporting the state of Palestine, if they wish to, and making any criticism they wish to of the State of Israel.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend how exactly the arrests on terrorism charges of over 1,000 peacefully protesting retired magistrates, as well as vicars, priests, war veterans and descendants of Holocaust survivors, help combat real terrorists like Hamas, al-Qaeda, Islamic State and, in the past, the IRA, who have deliberately targeted and murdered innocent bystanders? He and I worked together in Northern Ireland, so he will know about this. Should our hard-pressed police not be prioritising real crime, such as shoplifting, burglaries and anti-social behaviour, instead of being forced to frog-march normally law-abiding middle-Britain citizens into further clogging up our courts?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend and I have worked in Northern Ireland and on terrorism-related issues. If he received a report from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre saying that Palestine Action had met a threshold for terrorist activity, I doubt very much that he would not have signed that order as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary did. We have done that because Palestine Action has already had people convicted of not just criminal damage but intimidation and physical threats. There are cases about which I cannot comment that are before the courts; there are allegations around a range of other behaviours and there is strong evidence from JTAC about underground cells and plots against defence organisations and others.
Again, if people wish to hold up a placard saying, “I support Palestine Action”, that is an offence under the terms of the terrorism prevention order that we have. People are sometimes mistaken in their conflation of support for Palestine and support for Palestine Action. That is where the dividing line should be.
My noble friend says that we should concentrate on neighbourhood policing, shoplifting and other things. I just say to him that ensuring 13,000 new police officers will be on the beat over these four years, introducing measures on shop theft in the Crime and Policing Bill and conducting a drive to tackle anti-social behaviour are all things that this Government are doing. But we in this House and in this Government have a duty to protect our citizens against terrorism activity. When we get advice that this threshold has been crossed, it would be irresponsible of me and other members of the Home Office Ministerial team to ignore it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, a Labour MP recently commented that the people who have been arrested were not, in fact, supporting terrorism but objecting to the prohibition of the group. This is a very fine distinction for the police to try to make on the streets. Surely we should all be supporting the police because, after all, this is a logical consequence of prohibiting the group and having a law to make sure that support for terrorism is illegal, which was passed by this place and another. The Government must have considered that this group had some mass support for its general intent, if not its methods. This is one of the consequences that the police will have to try to resolve, and we all need to support them until this matter is resolved politically.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The police are acting extremely professionally, and I am grateful for their support on this matter. I assure the House that it is not an offence to say, “I wish to see the Palestine Action proscription overturned”. People can hold a placard saying that, but they cannot say, “I support Palestine Action”. In the same way, because of the tests that have been made under this legislation, they cannot say, “I support Hamas”.
I hope the police will exercise their discretion and examine those issues, and the CPS will do the same, but under the legislation there has to be a clear line in the sand. The JTAC assessment to Ministers was that this line had been crossed. Therefore, we have had to take action. I will continue to support the police in their difficult task of interpreting that action in an executive way, which it is not my responsibility to do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, peaceful protest about the unspeakable suffering in Gaza is entirely legal and allowed, but supporting an organisation which has been proscribed by Parliament, and which engages in illegal activity, allegedly including hospitalising a female police officer, should not be permitted. How will the Government explain the reality to the public and ensure that this distinction is crystal clear?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Earl’s support. We will do that and have done that, but there are several cases pending on which we are not able to comment. Therefore, I hope the public will accept and understand the reasons why that assessment has been made, but he is absolutely right in his comments .
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I absolutely condemn any demonstrators who attack the police; they should face the full force of the law. However, I have no doubt that the current approach is unsustainable. It blurs the line between violent or subversive action and legitimate, peaceful protest. The front-line police officers are strictly following the letter of the law in the name of national security, but does the Minister honestly believe that mass arrests of clearly well-intentioned members of the public are proportionate, necessary and wise, or that they serve the public interest?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am in danger of repeating myself to the House, but I have to, because the situation is quite clear: there is a line in the sand drawn by legislation passed by this House in 2000 on what a proscription order test is. We have had advice on that proscription order test and have passed legislation in both Houses which proscribes the particular organisation. Proscribing it then bans certain activity, of which protest in support of that organisation is one, not protest against the proscription in the first place. If that line is crossed, it is then for the police to exercise their discretion, for the CPS to determine whether charges should be brought and for a court to determine the activity.
None of that at all stops anybody from walking into Parliament Square today, standing up and condemning the State of Israel, protesting in favour of Gaza and for a Palestinian state, or condemning this—or any other—Government about our actions in favour of or against Palestine and a Palestinian state.
However, the line has to be drawn, and it has been. I hope those individuals who support Palestine will say so in a way that meets the legal obligations of free protest, but does not support organisations which, as the noble Earl said, cause criminal damage, have destroyed businesses, have carried out three major attacks, have thrown fireworks and pyrotechnics, have assaulted people in those buildings and have several court cases ahead. When they come out, if convictions are pursued, they will again show that there is further evidence in support of the actions that the Government have taken.
Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 June be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.
Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the nature of the threat that we face is evolving and the lines between hostile actors are blurred, do the Government have any plans to centralise verification and procurement approval, so that the best available commercial solutions designed to be able to tackle, investigate, monitor and counter cyberthreats and, indeed, critical tools such as secure messaging, can be delivered to the various agencies that need them without the need for the usual lengthy processes?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord’s question, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her sterling worth as a Minister in this House. I am sure that all noble Lords will thank her for her performance at this Dispatch Box and her support to all Members across the House. I am sure that we will hear many more of her contributions from the Back Benches.
The new Commercial Digital Centre of Excellence for the UK central Government will substantially improve service delivery, enhance user satisfaction and drive efficiency, leveraging new procurement regulations. The provision of cybersecurity services is a part of this vision. In addition, through the Crown Commercial Service’s Cyber Security Services 3 agreement, we provide an official streamlined route to market for National Cyber Security Centre-assured services. I also need to say that the Government are working tirelessly to improve the cyber resilience of government systems, basing our efforts around the Government’s cybersecurity strategy. We have made important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risks. We are now implementing a more interventionist approach to public sector cyber resilience to address key risks and better support departments.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, some 40% of companies in the UK reported last year that they had faced some sort of cyberattack. High-profile attacks such as those on JLR, Marks & Spencer and the British Museum are just the tip of the iceberg. In the Commons, the Minister referred to legislation. Can the noble Lord confirm when the cyber Bill will appear? What methodology might the cyber Bill use to solve this? The Minister implied that this legislation would seek to cause businesses to try harder. The protagonists of this crime are not state-sponsored, but they are tolerated and supported by the regimes in which they exist and they are part of the asymmetric war that this country faces. Of course business has to defend itself, and the Minister has outlined what the Government are doing now, but it is quite clear that that is not enough. What will the Government do that is different from what they are doing now to defend ourselves from this ever- growing problem?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord made a couple of interesting points, which are crucial, and I will try to address them. Cybersecurity of the UK is a key priority for this Government. It is crucial to protect public services, the public, our way of life and a successful, growing economy. We have been taking significant action to help protect business from cyber- attacks.
We are also providing businesses with the tools, advice and support to protect themselves from cyberthreats, including the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, which shows boards and directors how to effectively manage the digital risk to their organisation. The highly effective cyber essentials scheme prevents common attacks and reduces the likelihood of a cyber insurance claim by 92%. Before I was invited to be a part of the Government, when I ran my businesses I ensured that they all had a cyber essentials certificate. That is the basic requirement that you need to have. At the same time, businesses need to protect themselves by having sufficient cybersecurity insurance. There are a wide range of tools and support from the National Cyber Security Centre including training for boards and staff and an early warning system to get notified about cyberthreats to networks.
When parliamentary time allows, this Government will introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister have any information about how many companies are paying ransom demands? To what extent do the Government deal with insurance companies, advising them whether to pay ransoms or not pay them?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am sure that most noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any ongoing incidents. However, the Computer Misuse Act continues to enable the prosecution of those who have undertaken unauthorised access to computer systems for a range of malicious reasons including crime and espionage. The Government are in the process of reviewing the Act and the Home Office will provide an update on further proposals once they are finalised. In recent years, the Government’s policy has focused on supporting the insurance industry, to strengthen and grow the commercial cyber insurance market. Pool Reassurance, or Pool Re, was created to ensure the effective functioning of the UK’s terrorism insurance market. The Government do not have any plans to extend Pool Re’s remit to include further cyber-related risks.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, the scale, sophistication and sources of cyberattacks are increasing exponentially. To that end, I ask again: when will the Government introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill? Will it be this autumn? When that Bill arrives, will it contain provisions for the wholesale reform of the Computer Misuse Act to enable our cyber professionals to do what they do best, which is protect this country and protect us as citizens?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not hear my last answer. Tackling cyberthreats and improving our national cyber defences is a priority for this Government. As I mentioned, when parliamentary time allows, the Government will introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical infrastructure and essential services such as water, energy and the NHS and, I am told, food security.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, on Monday the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence heard a striking presentation from the Polish Minister for defence and cybersecurity, who talked about the joined-up thinking his nation has developed on defence and commercial attacks of this kind. I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to join up thinking in defence and industry, in terms of cyber- attacks. In light of the Government’s promotion of artificial intelligence, do they consider that this increases the risk of cyberattacks of this kind? What steps are the Government taking to advocate responsible and cautious adoption of AI to mitigate this risk?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. In 2024, the National Cyber Security Centre managed hundreds of incidents, 89 of which were nationally significant attacks. In 2025, the cybersecurity breaches survey shows that just less than half of businesses, about 43%, and around one-third of charities, about 30%, reported having experienced a cybersecurity breach or attack in the past 12 months. Cyberattacks do not happen just to big companies; they attack every company, all sizes and all types, and we have to be vigilant on that. The Government see the UK cybersecurity sector as a driving force in widening opportunities for our citizens. We have to ensure that this is protected. The Government have a plan and are working across departments putting a Bill together and we hope that parliamentary time will allow us to bring it forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I express my appreciation of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which the Minister mentioned, and I wish her well in her non-ministerial capacity. Given reports that the attack has been claimed by hacker groups linked to Scattered Spider, which I believe is also responsible for recent attacks on UK retailers, including Marks & Spencer, what enhanced intelligence-sharing mechanisms are the Government establishing between business sectors to prevent co-ordinated attacks by the same threat actors?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will appreciate that there is only so much I can say about what the Government are doing, but I assure him that the Government are speaking to businesses of all types through various business organisations. The National Cyber Security Centre is working with businesses. It has previously worked with M&S and the Co-op and is now working with JLR to provide support in relation to whatever incidents have happened, including the current incident. As I said, we cannot comment further on specifics at this stage, including with regard to potential perpetrators. The National Crime Agency has warned of a rise in teenage boys being drawn into online criminal communities and is co-ordinating responses to online harm networks across the United Kingdom.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before we were so rudely interrupted for lunch, I was going to speak to Amendments 430 and 436 in this group. Amendment 436 is the substantive amendment relating to the Independent Schools Inspectorate and Amendment 430 is the consequential amendment. Before I begin, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Spielman, for their support for these amendments.
The amendments are very much probing amendments to test the department’s thinking on the work and performance of the Independent Schools Inspectorate. The ISI is accountable to the Department for Education. If anybody—a parent, a pupil or school—were to have a complaint about the work of the ISI, they would, having exhausted other mechanisms, be able to go to the Department for Education and ask it to look into the way that an inspection has taken place, and potentially, I suppose, seek some findings or ask any other questions that they might have about the work of the Independent Schools Inspectorate.
I would be grateful to hear from the Minister, if she is able, in summing up or perhaps by writing to me, how confident the Department for Education is in the work and performance of the Independent Schools Inspectorate, and how involved the Department for Education gets on an annual basis, particularly in relation to complaints about the ISI. I would be interested to know how many complaints are made and how the department handles them.
School inspection, as we are going to debate in this group and the next, is extremely important and often very contentious. I am grateful, as I say, for the support of both noble Baronesses, but particularly that of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. As a former Ofsted chief inspector, she has experience unequalled by many in this Chamber in relation to school inspection. We have to look only at the headlines generated this week by the Government’s proposed new Ofsted handbook to see how strongly everybody involved in education feels about school inspection.
Accountability is essential for parents, to know how their children’s school and education setting is doing, for pupils and for the schools themselves. School accountability is absolutely critical—I say this having been in the Department for Education, and former Ministers such as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, may agree with me—for Ministers and for officials in the department. If there is an issue—particularly in relation to safeguarding or the way a school is being run—the answer, correctly, is to send in Ofsted, in the case of maintained schools or academies, to check what is going on. The department and Ministers will then accept the reports that they are given. The strength of our accountability mechanism is a reason why we have such good schools in England.
For me, the particular focus, and the reason I wanted to table this amendment, is that I am interested in the ISI’s inspection in relation to the role of governors and the quality of governance of our schools, which is of critical importance. Governance is not necessarily the same as leadership and management, and yet those phrases are often run together throughout standards and the relevant handbooks.
Had I had to rush my speech, I would not have referred to this, but given that we had a break for lunch, I will. I have checked the two frameworks and the handbooks. The Independent Schools Inspectorate handbook talks about inspectors covering a range of sources of evidence, including evidence of how those with governance responsibility assure themselves that leaders and managers are fulfilling their responsibility to ensure that standards are met. In November 2025, the proposed Ofsted handbook, which will come into force in two months’ time—I appreciate there is much debate around that—talked about a number of relevant factors. There are many, but I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to leaders and those responsible for governance understanding their respective roles and their performance in these roles in a way that enhances the school’s effectiveness. The point is that the Ofsted framework is tougher and stronger, and rightly so. It is not just asking governors and those charged with governance to look at how leaders and managers are doing—in this case we are probably talking about heads or those with senior management roles; it is asking the governors to reflect on their own performance. That is essential.
When I looked at the groupings, I thought perhaps I should ask for this amendment to be put into the next group, but, frankly, I think we have more than enough degrouping. We are about to talk in the next group about the inspection of multi-academy trusts. That is right and I will speak in support; it is probably something that many people have been calling for. The point about inspection of governance—it does not matter whether we are talking about schools, businesses or other organisations—is that, when you are inspecting something, you have to second-guess and work out who is calling the shots. In many cases, we are finding that, above the schools, there will be some kind of other body. In the case of the ISI inspection that I encountered, there was a foundation sitting above the four schools, one of which the foundation has since decided to close.
In the end, the inspectors decided to look at the performance of the individual school governing body and not the foundation governing body. It was the foundation governing body that was calling the shots and that had, I believe, overseen a woeful appointments process for one of the new head teachers. Personal experience is not necessarily the best thing to talk about in Committee when we are looking at amendments, but I could not miss this opportunity to probe the department’s thinking on this.
As I said, I believe that Ofsted does a better job, and the new framework is stronger. I would be very interested to know, in her summing up on this group, what the Minister and her department think about this. Is there any appetite for the Independent Schools Inspectorate to be brought under or for Ofsted to take on its responsibilities, so that all our young people in all our schools in this country are inspected, and that their education and the way they are governed and led are inspected to the same standard? Parents have the right to expect the same standards in all schools. If the Minister is unable to answer all my questions today, I would be very grateful if she or a colleague would be prepared to meet me.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 430 and 436, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for raising this issue at Second Reading, as I have been concerned about the ISI—previously the SIS—and former inspectorates of independent schools.
There are a number of queries about function, which I will probably theme as “visibility” and “responsibility” —in particular, building on what my noble friend Lady Morgan said, visibility for the Department for Education. While there is accountability, for the department itself there is a question about regulatory function. By that, I mean: do independent schools comply with the independent schools standards? The evidence on which the department is relying to perform its regulatory role, and then its potential enforcement action, in relation to schools is dependent on the information usually obtained through the ISI, which I believe my noble friend Lady Spielman will more ably outline as something that is more akin to a peer review system than to what we know through Ofsted.
With the independent sector, there is less visibility. State schools and numerically half of the independent sector—I would say the trickier half that are not in the association—sit with Ofsted. Therefore, the visibility at the centre in England is Ofsted, directors of children’s services, local authorities because of maintained schools and the DfE itself. Because of the academy system, there is an excellent team of regional school staff who know what is happening on the ground in their area. They are usually incredibly well informed; they are in close contact with the local authority, particularly on safeguarding; and they often liaise with the regional Ofsted teams. They really have a feel. As you sit there at the centre, you know you have an arm reaching out across England.
They know whether a school is struggling, particularly a secondary school. They know, “Oh, this one’s doing really well. This one’s probably going to get into good” —they just have that feel. You sit at the centre and think about the independent sector. As my noble friend Lady Morgan outlined, parents can call in. but you do not sit there with the same confidence, particularly with regard to safeguarding. We have had all kinds of serious historic problems—which I hope are a matter of the past—in both the state and independent sectors. So you have much less knowledge of and feel for what is happening and you are there as the regulator for independent schools, in a slightly different way from the state sector.
Therefore, there is more risk to having a Minister as the regulator, particularly because there is that lack of knowledge. I will give an example of where Ofsted has been really good over the past few years: in highlighting the issue of off-rolling. What applicability can that have to the independent sector? Let me give noble Lords some form of a situation. Consider a troublesome child in an independent school who has maybe been a bit violent. You call the parents in, you have the discussion and, because nobody wants to prejudice the child’s education or the reputation of the school, the child just disappears. However, they pop up again at another independent school, and the same thing happens.
I have read enough ISI inspections to know that it is unlike Ofsted, which can look at the data: “Where are the children? Where have they gone to? They have popped up at AP. They’ll be somewhere else in the system”. I accept that the unique reference number may help, but have we really got the rigour within the ISI system to spot a child like this, who probably needs much more significant intervention before they get to their teenage years, whose propensity not just for behaviour but maybe for serious behavioural issues has not been caught? How do you check, as DfE, whether what I have outlined is in fact the case—really, with an ISI peer review system?
Also, there is the fact that ISI is funded from within the schools it inspects, but says it maintains its independence from the ISC. It may be formally independent, but is it relationally independent? This is a network of individuals. It is a means to train as a head teacher of an association school or to become associate inspector. Does DfE have any role in the appointment of board members of ISI, whose inspections they rely on as regulator? It seems odd if it does not. Entry to ISI for a new school has usually been on the basis of a good Ofsted inspection, but, with the new Ofsted framework, do you need to be expected strong or of an expected standard to be eligible to join ISI? Who is going to determine that? DfE? ISI? ISC? It just seems unusual to have this system of entry that is not really managed by the department.
Sadly, I think that this is a failed market, and it is now a monopoly. It is a historical accident—I do not think there is malevolence in it—but we would not allow BUPA or private hospitals to operate like this; they are all inspected by CQC. Is it the case that, as the smaller inspectorate of this market that failed did not work, they were put straight into ISI without any of that entry criteria of going via Ofsted for a good inspection? I honestly do not know, because there is not the visibility.
So, whether or not ISI is transferred to Ofsted, as the amendment suggests, I think there needs to be greater quality control of the inspections by ISI, and those entrance criteria, and some sort of calibration of ISI inspections, particularly in relation to safeguarding. The harm done to children by failures of safeguarding is no respecter of social class, so ensuring the visibility of the rigour or otherwise of ISI inspections in this regard is vital. I have wondered and still wonder whether children in the independent system could, ironically, be more vulnerable due to this historical accident of an inspectorate ISI.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 429 and 433 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden, to which I have added my own. It is a pleasure to see my noble friend back in his place. In Bills such as this, his authoritative and powerful voice on issues related to independent education is extremely important, and we should heed his advice. I declare my interest as chairman of governors at Brentwood School, and honorary president of the Boarding Schools’ Association and Institute of Boarding.
As my noble friend said, these two straightforward amendments do not in any way strike at the integrity of the Bill or seek to undermine what it is setting out to achieve. They are simply practical amendments designed to ensure that, as far as independent schools, which are a vital part of the education sector, are concerned, the legislation works as effectively as possible. As it stands, under the Bill the Secretary of State has the power unilaterally to require independent schools to have regard to guidance issued by the department. This is not an onerous requirement and, like my noble friend Lord Lexden, I have no problem with the principle. Indeed, I see much merit in it. Where I have a problem, and this is at the heart of the amendment, is the tendency of guidance, over time, to acquire statutory force, particularly if the courts become involved at any point. It is therefore vital that any guidance issued has proper scrutiny and that those affected have a chance to make their views known through Parliament.
As a veteran of years of legislation impacting on the media, I know only too well that seemingly innocuous guidance can sometimes have the most profound unintended consequences, especially where regulatory creep sets in. Without being unduly bureaucratic or slowing the process down in any way, this straightforward amendment simply seeks to ensure that in three key areas of vital operational independence for schools in the sector—curriculum, admissions and examinations—there will be proper scrutiny of any guidance to ensure that it is practical, does not add unnecessary burdens on schools or encroach on their independence, and above all is future-proofed. That is what noble Lords are here to do—to scrutinise—and this amendment ensures we have a chance to do it properly.
Again, Amendment 433 is about practicalities. As I know from my own experience, it is not uncommon for people joining a school or moving into specialist provision for the first time, with one diagnosis requiring special support, rapidly to be diagnosed with another underlying condition, identified by experts at the school. As it stands, this Bill will make it well-nigh impossible for schools properly and effectively to deal with that without either placing themselves in legal jeopardy or, worse still, having to remove the child from the school until the material change process is completed in order to comply with these regulations. That cannot be what we want for children in a highly vulnerable position, and it is causing great concern among independent special school experts.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
Perhaps I could inform my noble friend that the oversight mechanism for ISI was first reduced a good many years ago when DFE asked it to remove the strand that involved monitoring a sample of inspections, and then it subsequently withdrew all the remaining elements. So, there is no longer any oversight model to my knowledge.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
That is not the case, as I understand it, but perhaps we could speak about that afterwards.
Most importantly, the regime is effective because inspection is best conducted by experts who know the sector. The ISI is made up of people who understand how it works. That is particularly true for boarding schools, which have a very different operational model from the vast majority of schools that Ofsted inspects. The noble Baroness rightly talked about accountability, which is an extremely important point. Peer review, in this case, is the best way to produce some form of accountability, but we will have to differ on that.
ISI is also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, self-funding. So it is no burden on the taxpayer, which is an important point, especially in the current economic circumstances. Changing this tried, tested and effective system would be costly, placing additional burdens on Ofsted; it would be disruptive; and above all, it would almost certainly weaken standards of inspection because inspectors would be unfamiliar with the types of schools they were looking at, and therefore what issues of which to be mindful and aware.
I hear what the noble Baronesses say, but I do not believe the case for such a significant and expensive change has been made; nor, indeed, is there any clamour within the sector, or from parents and teachers, as far as I know, for radical reform of this sort. I hope the Committee will reject these amendments.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, among several interesting amendments in this group, I support in particular Amendments 432A and 434 in the names of my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady Morris of Yardley. My reasons are exactly as I set out in our discussion of the previous group, so I will just sum up to my noble friend the Minister that we need to have an effective grip on unregistered schools, because of the undoubted harm to education and well-being being done—by some of them only—with impunity.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 432A from the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Blackstone, who spoke very well. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, is not here. He spoke very movingly, but I do not believe that any group in our society should be given the right to entirely exclude themselves from mainstream British life.
I was the Faith Minister for a time. I was assiduously courted by them; they are very good at that and were charming people, but I had to fight with them to get them to speak and teach in English, let alone all the rest of a broad curriculum that allows one to function properly in our society. For the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—I am not sure that she is here—to compare it with an easy-going Sunday school feels disingenuous. Sunday school is unlikely to be 10 hours a day, and these yeshivas are of course running for 10 hours a day, five days a week.
This is an important issue and I hope the Minister will look at it carefully, because otherwise, we will be setting a very dangerous precedent.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to what my noble friend has just said, and the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Blackstone. It is a matter of balance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, between the needs of the religion and the needs of the child to receive a broad and balanced curriculum sufficient that, when they are adults, they can make choices. Certainly, when I was a Minister there were a number of unregistered settings where the children were attending very full-time, and the organisations were pleading home education as their defence. There was no way, frankly, that there were enough hours in the dark day, or the energy, for that to plausibly be happening.
I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Can the Minister say why it is necessary to have these powers and these changes in relation to academies in the Bill? In five years as the Academies Minister, at no time did I feel that I needed any more powers—either those in this group or those we will discuss later—to sort out problems. Of course, we now know why these powers are in the Bill, even if we do not know why they are necessary: because the unions want them. We know that because the Secretary of State for Education told us so yesterday at the TUC conference. I must say that I admire her honesty. The unions have made a number of excellent comments recently about the dangers of smartphones and social media, because they know that they are creating considerable problems in schools for children and for their members. The fact that they have been so current on this and so strongly outspoken is very impressive, and I commend them for that.
However, it is my perception that the unions are still very anti-academies, which I suggest is an out-of-date attitude. It is clear that a teacher in a good multi-academy trust has far greater career progression opportunities, far greater CPD and far more support than they could possibly have in a single school. I therefore invite the unions to consider their antipathy for academies a bit more in the context of career progression, and to support for their teachers.
Of course, these powers are a power grab not just by the Secretary of State but by civil servants. I personally believe that academy, school and MAT leaders are far better placed to decide how to run their schools than officials micromanaging a system from Whitehall. We know that officials’ first pass at mass academisation after 2010 was not well managed. Having said that, there are currently a number of senior officials in the academies and regions teams in the DfE, as my noble friend Lady Berridge has alluded to, who are very experienced and for whom I have a great deal of respect, but they will not be there for ever. Given the Civil Service’s penchant for moving staff around far too much, such that they never build up any serious domain expertise, I believe that handing so much power to officials is dangerous. The Government would be far better off leaving things as they are because they are working perfectly well—we all have funding agreements and we all understand the deal—so that they can bask in the success of the academies programme, which, after all, was invented by the Labour Party.
I turn to Amendment 436B specifically. New subsection (2)(g) in Clause 39(5), to do with premises, appears to say that if a school wanted to change the use of a classroom from teaching pupils to a crèche or nursery, because of a drop in roll, it would have to ask the DfE. Really? Is that what is actually meant? I ask the Minister to clarify that, please.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendments 428 and 429A to eliminate any potential confusion between two distinct regulatory regimes. I will not repeat what others have said, but I believe that academy funding agreements should continue to be the primary regulatory instrument for these schools.
I also support Amendment 423 from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, to strengthen the set of offences linked to operating illegal schools beyond the somewhat narrow conception of a “proprietor”. Illegal schools often operate in the context of a wider community where they are intentionally enabled by the support and action of others besides the proprietor. Alongside that, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for Amendment 432 and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her remarks. Both recognise the importance and difficulties of collecting evidence in relation to unregistered schools.
I support Amendments 430 and 436, proposed by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, relating to independent school inspection. Again, I will endeavour not to repeat what has already been said, but I have an additional couple of points to make. Things can and do go wrong in all kinds of schools for all sorts of reasons, and always will. There needs to be an inspection model that is rigorous and thorough enough to report fairly and honestly, even when the findings are profoundly uncomfortable for the school and its leaders. Such a model has existed for Ofsted inspections—so for all state-funded schools and the half of independent schools, mostly the smaller and less well-known ones, that are inspected by Ofsted—and I hope that will continue to be the case under the new Ofsted model.
However. it is hard for the ISI to provide a corresponding level of rigour when it finds real problems in a school. I think the ISI inspection model is best characterised as a form of peer review. Peer review is a wonderful way of providing support and advice on ways to improve at the margin, but it is not so good as a method of landing really tough messages. It is simply too hard not to soften your messages and pull your punches a bit when you are talking to your peers. I understand that the ISI has only two full-time inspectors who must also oversee its whole inspection programme. There was once a DfE oversight mechanism for the ISI and a sample of its inspections used to be monitored, but that one control was dropped some years ago.
So, while the ISI peer review model has real value, and I do not want to undermine that, it is not the ideal model to underpin an effective regulatory system. In my experience, the DfE now turns to Ofsted to inspect ISI-inspected schools about which serious regulatory concerns have arisen, and, with the broadening range of schools being inspected by the ISI, that is not surprising. I therefore think it is time to extend a clear and important principle that has long applied in the regulation of state schools. For all state schools, inspection and reporting are kept separate from improvement and support work as a matter of principle. That principle has been maintained under successive Governments and is being maintained by this Government, and it is a good one, provided that the dividing lines are correctly drawn.
I realise that I have not declared my interest as a previous chief inspector, for which I apologise. I took an extraordinary amount of flak from people who did not realise or want to acknowledge that for me to turn Ofsted into a school support model would have been to cut directly across settled government policy. There is a strong logic for looking at the independent schools that are not already inspected by Ofsted on the same principle that improvement and support should sit separately from the hard job of inspection and reporting. There is a strong logic for unbundling the ISI—putting its formal inspection functions with Ofsted and leaving the supportive peer review model to be carried forward by the ISI. This would be a sensible step in the direction of a coherent and effective regulatory system.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will attempt to sum up this very diverse group—
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I apologise, that was my fault. I rise at the end of a very interesting group and look forward to the summing-up. One amendment has rather disappeared in the context of these important issues, but I strongly support it—Amendment 432B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Until she tabled this amendment, I had not looked very carefully at Clause 39.
Clause 39 sets out a whole long list of things which will constitute a material change in the nature of an independent educational institution. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to this amendment because that would generate a lot of pointless work. It is also a classic example of how, in a large Bill, things slip through on the nod, on auto drive, and have certainly slipped past MHCLG. It says that there will be a material change, among other things, if there is a change of the buildings occupied by the institution and made available for student use, which the noble Baroness’s amendment would strike.
Going a little further down the page, you discover that “building” means any
“building … part of a building, or … permanent outdoor structure”,
that the circumstances where a building is “occupied” may be just
“part of a school day”,
and that it is “for student use” if it will be “routinely used by students”. I do not expect the Minister to give me a clear reply on this immediately, but it strikes me that this means that the proverbial bicycle shed, if it was changed into a building in which students kept things in lockers, would constitute a material change for that institution. That is bonkers.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, even though it is in a group which is dealing with much more important matters. I would be very grateful for a reply on this from the Minister, because it is easily corrected. A Government who are genuinely committed to reducing regulatory burdens and to making planning processes more easily arrived at has let something slip in a way with which we are all too familiar.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, has just said, I want to speak to my Amendment 432 in this group and say that it is worth going that bit further than Amendment 434, which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is proposing. We are very much looking in the same direction. We want this to be an effective system.
I also lend my support to Amendment 433. On the practicality of understanding, the nomenclature changes all the time. In getting to know a child, you find things out about them, and a decent school immediately wants to do something to provide for that child. It should not have to go through layers of bureaucracy before doing that. As my noble friend said, there should be an immediate reaction and dealing with the consequences of it afterwards.
It is important to deal with the consequences. As my noble friend will remember, there was an excellent school called Stanbridge Earls School, which died because it started to take on children whose SEN it did not really understand. It did not make proper provision. The whole school collapsed as a result. It is really important that these things are properly done, but the immediate reaction to looking after one child should not get in the way of that process.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, second time lucky. This is a very diverse group of amendments and there are one or two that certainly caught my eye. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on change of use; that seems to be something the Government could quite easily make a small change on—I do not know how they would do it, but I do not think they would make many enemies if they accommodated that.
Schools have to be inspected, and if you have a consistent system doing that across the board it will be helpful to all. The issue of independent schools which are substandard has been raised, and my noble friend has raised it on many occasions. We should know what we are doing: if something is defined as a school and it is functioning as a school—well, if it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Let us make sure that they are all inspected to a similar standard. You will have to have flexibility in approach and some knowledge, because if they are doing different jobs, especially in the independent sector, different approaches will be needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, made a very good point about special educational needs. It is incredibly easy to miss co-occurring conditions, and then the one that comes to the fore gets labelled, although it may not be what is causing most of the problems. I say that as a dyslexic who has worked in the field for a long time; co-occurrence is almost the norm. People with dyspraxia are very often co-occurring, and the dyslexia is spotted first because they check your spelling first. They do not realise that you cannot write because you do not have the muscle memory, and your arm is breaking down in the physical movement, but it is going through. Something that allows a change to be made is sensible and practical and will save the child a great deal of distress—and the school too, although make sure you are dealing with the child first. The inspection regime has to have some consistency across it; otherwise, we will have a variety of competing groups with competing standards chasing their tails and blaming each other.
I hope the Minister can give us some assurance that we will get to a more coherent position in the future, but it has to be one which accepts that you are dealing with a variety of different animals.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this group, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for moving Amendment 427BA. The group considers amendments to the clauses relating to independent educational institutions. These clauses amend the Education and Skills Act 2008 and the regulatory regime which applies to independent schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, eloquently made clear, it is a diverse group, so I ask noble Lords to bear with me while I go through the diverse responses.
As noble Lords will be aware, academy schools are independent schools in law, which is why the regulatory regime in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 applies to them. Among other things, this means that academy schools are regulated by the Independent School Standards guidance. Vital issues, such as safeguarding, are covered by these standards. Due to their state-funded status, academy schools differ from other independent schools by also being accountable to the Secretary of State via their contractual funding agreements. This long-standing arrangement is not intended to change. Instead, Clauses 36 to 44 are principally intended to change how privately funded schools are regulated.
Amendments 428, 429A and 427BA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and to which a number of noble Lords spoke, including the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, concern the relationship between the Education and Skills Act 2008 and academy trusts and their schools. They would mean either that valuable parts of the Education and Skills Act 2008 will no longer apply to academy schools or that these powers would need to be recreated via funding agreements. This would be expensive and time-consuming, with no immediate benefits.
Amendments 431A and 506D seek to require a review of the predicted impact of the powers relating to the suitability of proprietors and the requirement for proprietors to have regard to guidance. It is absolutely right that we can prevent unsuitable people from running schools. We already have a robust process in place, including requiring new academy trust chairs or trustees to complete a suitability check. Our approach to due diligence is already transparent. We do not expect the process to be significantly different or burdensome under any regulations made using this power, so a review is unnecessary.
To respond to the noble Baroness, the power to require independent school proprietors to have regard to guidance is limited to matters already covered by the independent educational institution standards in Section 94(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. It is right that academies, as publicly funded schools accountable to the Secretary of State, should be required to have regard to guidance issued.
I turn to Amendments 429 and 433, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. If I have understood, the noble Lord’s concern is, first, that the Bill puts too great an imposition on the independent school sector and, secondly, that it represents an unnecessary fettering of its freedoms. On his first concern and Amendment 429, this new regulation-making power is limited to standards about matters already covered by Section 94(1) of the Education and Skills Act 2008. On his second concern and Amendment 433, the current requirement is that it is a material change to admit any pupils with special educational needs. This is too low a threshold and unnecessarily burdensome for institutions. Under Clause 39, it will matter to the Secretary of State whether a setting is a special institution and, if it is, what special educational needs it caters for. We do not intend to require a school to submit a material change based on the needs of individual pupils. Officials will test this further to ensure that the drafting does what is intended. I trust that this gives the noble Lord and others the assurance he is seeking.
Amendment 432, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 432A and 434, tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, make changes to the suite of inspection powers proposed to be given to Ofsted. To respond to my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Bill contains measures to increase Ofsted’s powers when investigating only the specified relevant offences; for example, suspected unregistered and therefore illegal independent schools.
On Amendment 432, I agree with the noble Lord that unregistered independent schools are unsafe. Ofsted should have the necessary powers to investigate these settings and support criminal prosecutions against those responsible. That is why the Bill introduces a new suite of investigation powers available to inspectors in this situation. These achieve the same ends as the noble Lord’s amendment.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and spoken to by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Whitaker and the noble Lords, Lord Agnew of Oulton and Lord Nash, both seek to further strengthen the new investigatory regime. Amendment 432A introduces two new offences in this area. These may criminalise a landlord who is wholly unaware that their property is being used for illegal purposes, or a parent who innocently pitches in to support the running of a school which is not registered. The existing offence in this area of “conducting” is already broad and should capture and support our aim of prosecuting anyone running, controlling or managing an illegal school. Amendment 434 would allow inspectors to search any premises without a warrant. While I understand my noble friend’s concerns, this would be too intrusive. The Bill already strikes a good balance between allowing inspectors to act as they deem appropriate and introducing necessary safeguards which protect the rights of those subject to the investigation.
Amendments 432B and 433A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would make changes to Clause 39. It may help if I outline why the Government believe that Clause 39 is necessary. A setting seeking to register as a new private school is tested against the Independent School Standards. The noble Baroness asked whether schools would need to apply for material change if, for example, they added a bike shed. To be clear, we want the focus to be on buildings that are commonly used by pupils and, therefore, the places where risks to them might often arise. We have examples of settings that put pupils in entirely inappropriate buildings, including buildings with dangerous chemicals or exposed wiring, buildings that the public can enter freely and buildings in a state of disrepair.
In relation to the point on bike sheds, officials are testing the current drafting to ensure that its scope is not overly broad; and that the focus is on buildings that would be commonly used by pupils and are, therefore, the places where risks to them might arise most often.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s answer on my amendment. Can she add to the many helpful things that she has said a commitment to drift the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and by me—as well as her own response —past the Chief Inspector of Schools to see whether he agrees with what she has said? From listening to him on several occasions, I have the impression that he might not.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Third time lucky, my Lords. I thank the Minister for her remarks and, in particular, her encouraging comments in relation to my amendment to Clause 39; I think that people will find them very reassuring. I hope that this may be a new trend, in the Government’s response, of accommodating our amendments. I will read Hansard very carefully.
To be honest, the Minister was obviously trying to be as speedy as possible. I know that the Committee appreciates that, but I did not follow fully her comments about the applicability of certain elements to the Bill to fee-paying schools only, which I know she talked about; I just need to make sure that we understand that. I also did not understand why 16-to-19 academies are still accepted institutions while wider academies, including all-through academies, are not, but I can pick up those points.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their amendments in this group. The Minister gave some reassurance to my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black of Brentwood in relation to their Amendment 433; I am grateful to the Minister on their behalf for that.
The Minister was clear that, in relation to illegal schools, the Government’s approach achieves the same as Amendments 432 and 434 in particular; that is what I have written her down as saying. However, as my noble friend Lady Spielman said, in her experience, it can be very hard to gather evidence. I remember that, in 2022, we spent a lot of time during the passage of the then schools Bill debating the merits of being able to inspect unregistered schools without a warrant. Therefore, there are points on which I hope the Minister will accept my noble friend Lord Lucas’ invitation to explore with the chief inspector.
We had a very good debate in relation to Amendments 430 and 436 in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. Some valid questions were raised about the Independent Schools Inspectorate, both in terms of the value of having two inspectorates and the degree of independence of the ISI. It is crucial that all parents can have confidence in the judgments of the inspectorate for their schools, obviously, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the department continues to have confidence in the ISI.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the offence of providing education or supervised activity while the registration of an independent educational institution is suspended is not committed by providing boarding accommodation (which may be prohibited separately) or activity necessary to ensure the welfare of boarders, such as supervised meals or fire safety instruction.
Lord Blunkett
“School inspections: multi-academy trustsIn section 5(2)(d) of the Education Act 2005, after “schools”, insert “and trusts””
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
In moving Amendment 435, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends and of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, who quite rightly drew attention in the last debate to anomalies that have arisen over the years that I hope we will be able to put right. Mine is a simple amendment that says that multi-academy trusts should be subject to the same inspection regime as schools and local authority children’s services. I shall be as brief as possible, otherwise the Committee will be sitting very late.
I want to take the Committee back to 1988, when the noble Lord, Lord Baker, brought forward the legislation which started the process of what was called local management of schools. Some local education authorities had had the wisdom to devolve much greater powers to heads and to free up schools to innovate before that date, but the Bill, along with bringing in the national curriculum, reinforced the importance of schools managing schools. The head was responsible for what took place in a school and could be held to account. Local management of schools was about accountability and where the buck stopped on standards being dramatically improved, with the support at the time of the better local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, will remember that, when we were in the department from 1997 to 2001, we spent a lot of time trying to unlock the worst of local authorities’ iron grip on the throats of head teachers who were trying to get on with the job and innovate. Back in the 1980s, there had been experiments in a number of areas of local governance. Governing bodies were being brought into being and parents and communities were being engaged much more with their school.
Many changes have taken place since. From 2001, when I was pleased and proud to be the Education and Employment Secretary, we started the process of academisation. It followed grant-maintained schools, foundation schools and the greater freedom that schools had already acquired over the previous decade, and was intended to have a laser focus on improving standards and changing the lives of children in many schools which had simply let them down. That process had a life of its own over the subsequent decade and led, in 2010, to a massive acceleration of separate free- standing academies, supported by additional resources.
I am going back on the history because what then occurred was what the chief inspector at the time described as atomisation—a fragmentation of the system. Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, as he is now, recognised that this was not tenable and that we were ending up with flowers that were sometimes blooming but quite a lot that needed watering and nurturing.
The growth of multi-academy trusts was a natural reversion to bringing schools together and to having a superstructure that could provide support. That support has grown. Some of the best multi-academy trusts, some of which have been supported and nurtured by Members of this House, have shown precisely what can be done with the right balance of support and guidance and sometimes rigorous intervention with the local management of schools—head teachers being given their head and carrying true responsibility. Other multi-academy trusts have had a different approach, and the split between the founding board and the trust board can have interesting outcomes.
Amendment 435 is very simple. If, as is quite right, we inspect local authority children’s services and individual schools, we should also inspect multi-academy trusts. That is not a threat—it is a promise. It will ensure that the best is highlighted and that, where there are problems, they are rooted out. If a multi-academy trust is in charge of overall funding and HR, and, as in many cases, has taken to itself the power of appointments, as well as being in charge of how the curriculum is developed and applied, all those elements are about the delivery of standards for children. Not to inspect makes no sense at all.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, first, I express my support for what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has put forward in his amendment. In many respects, the amendment that I am about to speak to and the twin amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran are an elaboration and development of the principle.
We have a long-established regulatory model focused at school level and a much more recently established regime for academies and academy trusts. As the noble Lord said, there was a separate regime for local authority school improvement work, which was abolished some years ago—perhaps a good idea, perhaps not. The noble Lord said that the underlying model evolved in the 1980s and was one of high autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability. It is interesting that few in English education even recognise that this comparatively high level of autonomy continues today, relative to other countries.
There has been constant pushback on accountability for decades, whatever form it takes, and there have been important changes in recent years. A powerful model of autonomous school group operation has emerged with academy trusts. In these groups, some decisions and activities can sit at the centre or in schools, depending on the model adopted. There is a wide range of models, from the very highly integrated through to the highly devolved. Much good has flowed from this model—as well as, inevitably, problems from time to time—but regulation and oversight have not quite caught up. Let us remember that, for an academy, the legal entity is the academy trust, so it is the trust that carries the legal responsibility and is properly held accountable at group level, not just at school level.
On the other hand, inspection has been constrained by government policy to school level. Bizarrely, school leaders are increasingly being held accountable for decisions and actions that actually sit elsewhere in a MAT. It is unsurprising that some school leaders feel that they are bearing a disproportionate share of the accountability burden relative to their bosses.
Of course, the DfE has been extending and elaborating its oversight model for trusts, but this remains heavily reliant on self-reported and outcome data, and perhaps lacks some of the insight that comes from expert scrutiny of MATs’ central operations and professional dialogue with MAT leaders.
It is widely acknowledged that there has to be more scrutiny of MATs. Outcome measures alone do not give enough assurance that MATs are using their freedoms well to provide education with real substance and integrity and the support that enables all children to grow into resilient and competent adults.
My Amendment 436ZZB and the immediately preceding amendment from my noble friend Lady Barran are intended to draw together a somewhat disparate set of provisions to help create a coherent regime for the regulation of academy trusts. This regime would set out clear purposes and priorities for the regulation of academy trusts, although the interests of children, and parents on behalf of children, should still come first. It would recognise the varying structures of trusts and the divisions of responsibilities within them and be flexible enough to respond appropriately. It would draw on expert insights and judgments in arriving at rigorous and well-evidenced decisions and keep the various bodies involved in education regulation in alignment. DfE, Ofsted, the admissions adjudicator and others each have their own sphere, but there is further to go in thinking systemically about how to make sure that those levers fit together in the most effective and efficient way.
Finally, it is very important that there is the right level of transparency on this work—something to which the amendment from my noble friend Lady Barran draws our attention. Confidence in the system depends on making sure that people can see what is being done and understand the basis for it. Those transparency provisions are, therefore, also really important, and I hope they will be taken on board.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 435 in the name of my noble friends, led by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. In doing so, I remind the House of my interests, in particular as chair of the E-ACT multi-academy trust.
I have thought for some time that it is important that we bring forward the inspection of MATs. I was therefore delighted to see it as an election commitment from the Labour Party when it went into the last election, and I have been looking forward to the Government implementing it. It is right that the Bill is being used as an opportunity to introduce powers to do that. It would then be up to the department and the Government to do the necessary work with Ofsted to get ready for that, so that Ofsted has the expertise within its inspectorate on how MATs work—something that it currently does not consistently have. We therefore should not rush at this, and I have some nervousness about some of the other amendments that are arguing for a six-month implementation timeline. We should leave the timeline to the Government until they are confident that the expertise exists to do it.
I am also interested in whether we should define the proprietors of academies and local authorities as responsible bodies for schools, so that we can have a single inspection framework for both local authorities and academies in respect of their inspection and get more consistency across both forms of governance.
If we are inspecting those responsible bodies—MATs in this case—it is also interesting to look at whether there is an opportunity for rationalisation around inspection. Good, well-governed, well-run MATs have good school improvement capacity and good capacity to support the schools that are in their trusts financially, in procurement and in all the various aspects of running good schools. After Ofsted has carried out an effective inspection of the MAT, it then ought to be possible to use a risk-based approach to decide whether it needs to inspect all the schools in that trust. That rationalisation could then release capacity for more consistency within Ofsted. One of the main complaints about Ofsted in the school system is the consistency of the outcomes of inspections. I do not blame Ofsted; it has operated within considerable budgetary constraints and has had to take its fair share of resource cuts over the period, and that has an impact on the consistency of inspections. Anything we can do to increase capacity should be welcomed.
This goes to the importance of governance. When the noble Lord, Lord Gove—who is not in his place—was the Secretary of State and oversaw the rapid expansion of academies, to which my noble friend Lord Blunkett alluded, I do not think he properly appreciated that one of the core elements of the success of the academies that I oversaw when I was the Academies Minister under the previous Labour Government was around governance. It was from having individuals such as the noble Lords, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew, put their names to a multi-academy trust and their reputations on the line to ensure that the governance was strong. In those reforms from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, we had this rapid expansion without a serious focus on whether or not the governance was improving alongside it.
So I also encourage the Government, as part of thinking about this, to review the governance of multi-academy trusts to ensure that we have good consistency as we expand the number of MATs and seek to improve their improvement capacity. As part of that, I ask them to look at the appointment and term of office of the members of academies. The five members of E-ACT are wonderful people, and I thank them for their service, but they are self-appointed and appointed for as long as they want to do the job. It is a slightly odd arrangement in that they are the people I am accountable to as the chair of the trust, while their accountability—and to whom—is questionable.
I would be interested in a solution whereby the local authorities within which the MAT operates appoint the members, and then the trust board would be accountable through that route to the local authorities. In that way, the local authorities would not be operating schools through the trust, but the governance would be accountable to local authorities. That would bring better consistency and better accountability into the system. On that basis, I support my noble friend Lord Blunkett and his amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the overall principle of this group. There are three interesting amendments, which are slightly different, and I am sure that Ministers, if they are ready to agree this—and it reflects what the Government committed to in their manifesto—will want to take it away. I think it is a sign of the maturity of the academy trust system that the governance of multi-academy trusts or the way that they are working should be inspected. Whether that is done when individual schools of the trust are inspected, when questions are asked about the running of the trust, is perhaps open for discussion, but I support the overall principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said the buck stops here. In the last group I asked who is calling the shots. We were both making the same point about accountability. In all the conversations I have had with multi-academy trust leaders in preparation for proceedings on this Bill, they are confident about the education they are offering, the schools they are running and the standards they are setting. Whether we get to the group today or not, we will talk about school improvement, and the reality is that the capacity for school improvement in England sits with our multi-academy trusts. They know a lot about the education system and, therefore, I do not think that they would be put off by being inspected.
Of course, you will not want to cut across any other regulators that the multi-academy trusts are already governed by. Many of the multi-academy trusts are set up as companies and so they are regulated by Companies House; they will be producing accounts and will be accountable in that way. There is an opportunity for this legislation to be wary of creating regulatory burden creep, but it could ask the right questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, just raised an interesting question about local authorities. I think he was talking about the inspection of local authorities, as many of them are in the same positions as multi-academy trusts. Consistency of inspection is exactly what I was asking for in the last group, and I have to say that I am slightly disappointed, unsurprisingly, by the answer that I had from the Government Front Bench on that. Consistency in accountability, and in understanding who is really responsible for the education, is important.
I am very pleased to see the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I should be very interested to see how the Government take this overall principle forward. I am sure there will be debates about it and I am sure we will disagree with some of it, but it is an important principle. It is a sign of the maturity of the multi-academy trust system, which is to be welcomed and which we will debate in the next few groups.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I also support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 435. I am delighted to hear the support for inspection of multi-academy trusts across the Committee. I have never understood a single argument against it; we have been discussing this, probably, for five to 10 years now, and I never been even a bit persuaded by any of the arguments against it. If we have got to the point where there is cross-party agreement on this—that it needs to be done—that is to be welcomed.
They are a very important part of our school system. We have tried, over 30 years of reform, to give freedoms to schools but hold them accountable through results, inspection and regulation. There is just no argument for leaving a multi-academy trust out of that picture. So, this is good.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I speak strongly in defence of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and his Amendment 435, supported by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Spielman, which is long overdue. When I was the Minister in 2017, it was the first thing I tried to do, and I ran into a turf war between Ofsted and the department. It was as simple as that. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked why nothing has been done about it. It is because the bureaucrats were fighting each other.
The excuse then was that there were not the sufficient financial skills in Ofsted to look at the financial framework and capability of the MAT. I think that is nonsense; I think we could train a small number of Ofsted inspectors very quickly to understand the basic principles. For example, GAG pooling, which is one of the big advantages of multi-academy trusts when they essentially have one bank account. Only about a third on MATs do that. I am a huge fan of it, although I do not think my noble friend Lord Nash is. That is fine; that is part of the flexibility that the system has created, but the Ofsted inspector would need to understand that.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a point about it freeing up resources, and I completely agree. In the three years since I have been back as the chairman of my trust, I have had to sit through, I think, 12 interviews with Ofsted inspectors. Some 80% of what I tell them is exactly the same every single time: we have a joined-up curriculum across the whole trust and we have GAG pooling of all the money. That is all happening; the heart and brain is at the centre.
Therefore, having inspectors going round all these peripheral schools, where they will get the same answer time after time, is a tremendous waste of time. Go to the centre and, and if you are then worried about the messaging or the data you are inspecting, take a deeper dive into individual schools. If you did a single MAT inspection every three years, you would not have to go into every school.
I really cannot understand why there would not be huge support for this. Would it not be wonderful if we could bring the Committee together with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lady Barran, and agree an amendment that the Minister can work with? I promise noble Lords that everyone would benefit .
Lord Lucas (Con)
My noble friend of course runs a good academy trust. Where things are not so good, you can get a lot of variability between the schools that append themselves to a trust. So this has to be judged on the occasion: you cannot just say you we will inspect the middle and not the outside; if the middle is not functioning well, the outside can really be very up and down.
I will add a couple of thoughts. First, I do not like the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, of local authorities appointing. The way you gather good people together is by having a few excellent people in the middle who want other excellent people around them. Then you have Ofsted, or whoever, saying “Is this working?”. Local authorities just tend to appoint anybody, and those people do not turn up or know enough. Where I have seen local authorities appointing boards, it has been uniformly a disaster.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am not suggesting that local authorities appoint the boards; I am suggesting that local authorities appoint the members who, in effect, are the shareholders to whom the boards have to report on an annual basis at the annual general meeting.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Yes, but we still want responsive, interested and active people there—and that is not what you get in my experience.
Secondly, I hope that inspection will look at the connection with parents, which can be hugely different across MATs. Some parents have a real connection with the school, and the school does that interface very well. With other, more distant MATs, anything that a parent is worried about just disappears into the fog and they never really know how to work with them. A good MAT will work well with parents, and Ofsted ought to look at that.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 435, to which I have added my name. I am also happy to signify support for Amendment 436ZZB. I am less enthusiastic about Amendment 436ZZA, because it is prolix and bureaucratic —but, if the opportunity came, I would not vote against it.
What is noticeable and very welcome is the unanimity of view across the Committee on this issue, which is one of accountability. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, academies are a very important part of the school system. I have no connection with academies, unlike other noble Members who have spoken, other than as the parent of a child currently in year 10 of a school in a multi-academy trust in London. However, it is important that we have insight into what is happening within trusts to a much greater extent than we have at the moment, because there is a fundamental gap in the accountability system for school education. If schools and children’s services are inspected, why not multi-academy trusts? For that reason, we need transparency, consistency and fairness.
Ofsted needs to have the power to inspect trusts’ governance, financial stewardship, curriculum content and teacher development, and how the trust-level ethos affects children across their academies. Some tales of the way in which certain trusts operate do not look good, given some of the pressures under which children are placed. I believe that good MATs should and will welcome this.
I do not need to add further to what other noble Lords have said. This was a Labour manifesto commitment, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, so all I ask my noble friend the Minister is: if not now, when? I hope that the answer will be, “On Report”.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I very strongly support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I call him a friend because we have both borne the same responsibilities in the past and it looks as if his proposal has all-party support in the Committee. I assure your Lordships that that is very rare in education—very rare indeed.
Multi-academy trusts were created some years ago because of the success of academisation. So many private schools had hitherto been controlled by local authorities, which understood money, but many independent schools did not have much understanding of money until they got their budgets. There was a need for an institution to sit between the Department for Education and the educational world of schools, particularly as—as anyone who has ever served in the Department for Education as a Minister or Secretary of State knows—not many people in the department have actually run a school. It is not their particular skill; they have other skills in other matters.
I have had some experience of it because of the schools for which I am responsible—university technical colleges —of which there are now 44 with over 21,000 students. Many of these are now members of multi-academy trusts —in fact, two-thirds of them. This is quite challenging for the trusts because we are not ordinary secondary schools like the other ones that they control. We go from 14 to 18 only and tend to have a longer working day and shorter holidays, but the 14 year-olds spend two days a week—that is 40% of the time—in workshops, visiting companies or learning how to use machinery. UTCs are very different from the other secondary schools in the multi-academy trust.
Initially, I was quite concerned that multi-academy trusts would not recognise the differences, but in my experience they have. I think we had difficulty with only one of them, where all the other schools in the trust were primary schools, so there was not a great deal of experience of running a secondary school. I also discovered that the chairmen of multi-academy trusts are sometimes very able people—not quite as able or experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Knight—who have a need and an important responsibility for handling money. I strongly remember my noble friend Lord Agnew spending very long days trying to teach financial control directly to schools to ensure that they understood how to control their budgets and to get the best out of them. The best academy trusts do this, so I think they have now become part of the institution and I can see no reason why they should not be inspected.
They are not really directly responsible to anybody. I expect that the Secretary of State, but not many Secretaries of State, will spend time worrying about how MATs are run. It would be a very good idea to have a system of education for them and therefore I support that amendment.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Spielman and support the sentiment behind them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that we should not rush to this, because I think Ofsted inspectors will need some training on it. Many of them still do not really understand MATs, and I am a little worried about boasting too much about organisational structure; it is more the results that count and educational outcomes, the support from the centre, personal development, safeguarding, careers, enrichment et cetera. Of course, it is fairly easy to inspect for value for money by reference to comparable statistics, so that could certainly be done. In principle, I support this concept and welcome the very eloquent intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is said that, if you have all-party support on education in the House of Lords, you should probably run with it. We have it on this occasion.
There is a major part of the education system that we are not looking at: we are not inspecting the academy trusts properly. There are some successes there, and some that are not doing as well; that is inevitable, but it is an accepted part of the system now. We should be looking at what works and what does not.
My question to the Minister is as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked: if not now, then when? If we are going to do something along these lines, getting an idea of the structure and when it is coming in would be very helpful, because it is a very important part of the structure. Whether we accept that with a sigh or a smile does not matter; it is there and we should be inspecting it. I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans in this department very soon.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group includes a number of probing amendments to understand the Government’s thinking about MAT inspection and intervention. Over 80% of our secondary schools and over 40% of our primaries have become academies in England, with almost 1,200 multi-academy trusts or MATs and roughly another 1,000 single-academy trusts or SATs—the latter largely being secondary schools.
The amendments in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lady Spielman and I, aim to address and provide tentative answers to three main issues. The first, on which your Lordships have already touched, is that a sense of unfairness has developed, with a potential misalignment between autonomy and accountability, which are the two planks that have underpinned our school reforms over the last two decades or so. Accountability remains at the school rather than the trust level, while autonomy, particularly in more centralised trusts, rests with the trust rather than the school. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my amendments aim to address that misalignment.
My Amendment 436ZZA allows for a more straight- forward path for intervention in trusts where there is sustained academic underperformance in their schools. I agree, as ever, with my noble friend Lord Nash that we need to be looking at and worrying about outcomes for children before process.
The amendment excludes schools that have been recently sponsored, so that no disincentive is created for a strong trust to take on a weak school. Similarly, it adjusts for levels of deprivation—not in any way to dilute ambition, but to make sure that the approach is fair and feels fair—comparing trusts to groups of schools in their local area rather than to a national performance table.
Finally, the power would aim to avoid creating so-called “orphan schools” or multi-academy trusts that were not of an economic or effective size for the purposes of education. I know from my time in office that there were a handful of trusts that had schools that consistently and substantially underperformed their neighbours, and the department was genuinely constrained in its ability to intervene. We had planned to intervene in a very small number, but unfortunately the election got in the way. It was certainly not in the simplest or most streamlined way that any of us would have wanted.
Traditionally, and I think understandably, the department has been hesitant to intervene in a school or a trust without independent analysis—typically via an Ofsted report—before doing so. We did find a way to intervene via a failure of governance, but this amendment would make it more coherent, albeit we believe the power would be used rarely. Our proposal in the amendment is that the department would prepare an annual report, which would allow one to understand if there have been any patterns of failure and the scale of any problems in the system. We believe that, in practice, the power would not be used often, as intervention would send a clear message to other trusts that were underperforming that this needs to be addressed quickly in the interests of children.
As my noble friend Lady Spielman said, Amendment 436ZZB builds on Amendment 435 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but brings a very specific focus to MAT inspection. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, questioned the merit of putting details in the Bill and the prioritisation that was set out. I will say just a couple of things about that. It is important that we try to be clear about how MAT inspection and school inspection fit together. We do not want MAT inspection to duplicate or confuse school inspection. We tried to make it clear in this amendment what inspection could look at. It is, if you like, a starter for 10. Obviously, this requires a great deal of thought, but the amendment is trying to look at the effectiveness and value for money of MATs. It is not trying to say that one model is better than another.
On prioritisation, the noble Baroness talked about too much focus on schools that were significantly underperforming, but she will note that at proposed subsection (3)(a)—there is a typo in the Marshalled List; that is what I spend my time doing in the evenings, obviously, spotting typos. What should be proposed new subsection (3)(a) states that inspections must prioritise MATs
“which are seeking to enter into new partnerships with schools”.
That is a rather unclear way of saying MATs that want to grow. If you want to take on a new school, we need to be confident in your ability to manage that well. Then there are schools that are significantly under- performing and MATs which are not providing value for money.
I am sure that that wording could be improved on, and it feels like we have a great cross-party working group, if the Minister wants volunteers, to try to narrow this down. I know that officials have been thinking about this for some time, possibly since my noble friend Lord Agnew tried to introduce it almost 10 years ago. I think we have a bit of a starter in the definitions of what we are looking for in the work that we did on the strong trust framework, which sets out very clear expectations in relation to all aspects of running a good trust.
I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply. I hope she is as struck as I am by the tone of this debate, which feels slightly different from some that we have had. I agree with the call to action of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett: “Just do it now.” I know we are not allowed props in the Chamber, but I have Nick Gibb’s book beside me, because I thought he ought to be here in spirit, if not actually present. That book shows “Do it now, but keep doing it, do it well, stick at it and don’t let go”. I leave the Minister to comment on that.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
You always know that you are in for a good debate when you have a group in which four former Secretaries of State for Education contribute—in agreement with each other—accompanied by a positive bevy of Academies and Schools Ministers and a former chief inspector.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s setting in context of the history of how we got to this point was both enormously interesting and informative in identifying how we have arrived at this cross-party consensus about the need to bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system. That is why the Government set out in our manifesto that that was our intention, believing, as others have argued, that it will make the system fairer and more transparent and enable direct intervention to address failure when necessary.
On Amendment 435, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, Amendment 436ZZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, which seeks to introduce Ofsted inspections for multi-academy trusts, and Amendment 436ZZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to bring in a related regime of intervention for multi-academy trusts, I am grateful to the noble Lords for tabling those amendments, as this is an important matter and, as we have heard in this debate, one on which there is a large amount of consensus. I am pleased to see that there is support on both sides of the Committee for bringing multi-academy trusts into scope for inspections.
As I say, we are committed to bringing forward legislation during this Parliament to introduce the inspection of multi-academy trusts and intervention where there is failure. The inspection regime should also highlight excellence and support the spreading of good practice between trusts. Taken together, those will help to raise standards in education and support all children to achieve and thrive.
I suppose my regret today is that I am playing the role of the force of conservatism in the face of the urging by noble Lords from across the Committee to just get on with it. But I will take noble Lords through the process, which is important here. The Government believe it is important that we bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system but also that we do it well. We want to work with the sector to get the detail right in the interests of pupils and the workforce.
There are a number of complex issues that we are working through, some of which have been raised in the debate, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to ensure that we bring forward a system that delivers for pupils and the workforce. For example, the inspection of multi-academy trusts must be delivered in a way, as several noble Lords have talked about, that works in harmony with school inspection—which is itself currently in the process of being reformed—in a way that avoids an excess burden on the school workforce and, as my noble friend Lord Knight helpfully identified, in a way that is effective but proportionate.
As I have said, we are already engaging with the sector. I hope it will encourage noble Lords that we were also pleased that Ofsted secured funds from 2026 in the spending review to build on this with further research and piloting. Ofsted’s work will continue in parallel with the Government bringing forward legislation so that we meet the manifesto commitment to bring multi-academy trusts into the inspection system during this Parliament.
I recognise that this will not be quick enough for noble Lords around the Chamber. I hope, however, that when the noble Lords on that side of the House had the responsibility of actually delivering policy, frustrated though I am sure they were on various occasions, they also understood the importance of getting it right. There is no difference of objective here between the Government and those urging speed; there is just a responsibility on the Government to ensure that this is done properly, and I hope noble Lords will recognise that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope it is not breaking confidences to say that the department had done a lot of thinking about this 18 months ago, so we are not starting from a standing start. If the Minister has not seen that thinking, I am sure it is sitting on a DfE shelf somewhere and could be rekindled.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that this will be part of what officials have been using, but I reiterate the point that there have been other, considerable changes to the Ofsted regime, many of which were announced this week. We must ensure that the work goes alongside that. We will very soon have a new White Paper on schools. That will lead to legislation that I am certain will help us to make progress on this important development, on which clearly there is consensus across the House.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am very grateful for the final intervention by the noble Baroness opposite. Collective memory has always been a problem in government. It is nice to know that there is something on a shelf somewhere, although we have had rather an experience over the last 14 months of sometimes pulling the wrong one off it.
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is perfectly feasible to square this circle. It is perfectly feasible to put in the Bill an enabling clause that allows the department, through the White Paper and beyond, to bring forward implementation. As has been suggested by a number of noble Lords, one can then sophisticate it with guidance or, if it requires it, regulation. We have got into a mindset of having to put things in the order that they were first thought of. It is difficult to get legislative approval within government. We used sometimes to manage it, not least when my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Rooker were my representatives in this House, because they used to cause absolute sodding havoc. Normally they were right.
One time, I had the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the phone demanding the resignation of my noble friend Lord Rooker for something that he had said in the House. I said, “Well, there is one surefire way of making sure that everybody knows about it, Gordon, and that is to fire him”. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for getting such a speedy response from the Minister. It is almost unknown. It gives me the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on being reappointed as the Minister for Skills. Not only that but she has it in two departments—the DWP and education. She is the most powerful Minister for Skills that has ever been appointed. I think she will make the most of it. This change is one of the most significant of the reshuffle.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to extend investigations to those qualified teachers currently teaching overseas. The effect being that should they return to the UK, or seek employment with employers who make a prohibition check with the Teaching Regulation Authority, incidents carried out overseas will be covered.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 436ZB in my name. I remind your Lordships of my education interests, particularly as the chair of the Council of British International Schools. I thank Emily Konstantas, chair of the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition and CEO of the Safeguarding Alliance, for her assistance with these amendments. She has given me ample evidence of two safeguarding loopholes that we are seeking to close with these amendments.
First is the problem that under current legislation the Teaching Regulation Agency can act only where misconduct occurs in England. This means that it is not possible for a teacher qualified in England who then commits an offence overseas to have that included on the register. Indeed, our experience is that there is not even any means to report the offence to the TRA that the individual is a risk to children.
International schools routinely use prohibition checks upon recruitment of teachers, so this loophole is significant for them. If an individual has committed an offence in a school in one country and then goes to another, that offence is not picked up by the prohibition check. Therefore, as it stands, prohibited individuals can exploit international mobility to avoid scrutiny and teachers dismissed abroad for misconduct can return to England or elsewhere unchecked. With pupils placed at risk in this way, the integrity of the profession is undermined. My amendment simply applies the teacher misconduct regime to anyone who has at any time been qualified to teach in England and thus closes the loophole.
The second problem is the growing practice of prohibited individuals legally changing their names between organisations and across countries to evade scrutiny and justice. I am concerned about the scenario where an individual has been convicted for an offence and then changes their name. They may then train and qualify as a teacher under the new identity and with a teacher reference number attached to that name. My amendment seeks to insert reasonable efforts to investigate name changes when the Secretary of State investigates disciplinary cases. I hope that my noble friend the Minister—and I associate myself wholly with the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in respect of her reappointment—agrees that these loopholes must be closed and will amend the Bill accordingly. I beg to move.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 436ZA and 436ZB in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS which, as the noble Lord said, is a member of the British International Schools Safeguarding Coalition.
As the noble Lord set out, these amendments would close an important safeguarding loophole by extending the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency to accept referrals of misconduct committed by UK-qualified teachers working overseas, and strengthening prohibition checks to ensure that individuals cannot exploit name changes to evade detection.
Prohibition checks are essential to identify individuals banned from teaching due to misconduct, safeguarding concerns or professional incompetence, and yet none of these misdemeanours committed at international schools overseas can be referred to the TRA. Indeed, as the noble Lord stressed, the current system does not even provide an option for them to report such concerns to the TRA online, creating a clear gap in the information that it holds. The loopholes in the current system mean that a teacher who is returning to the UK, for instance, and should have been referred to the TRA due to potentially serious child welfare issues committed overseas cannot be reported and so no prohibition order can be made. As a result, the individual would pass the statutory check, which schools rely on as evidence that an individual is safe to work with children. In practice, that could mean a teacher dismissed for misconduct abroad would have a clear result on their prohibition check and could subsequently be hired by a school in England that had no idea of their previous behaviour and allow the teacher to resume teaching.
I am sure the Minister agrees that this situation is clearly unsatisfactory and should be addressed. I hope she is able to accept these sensible amendments, which are supported by the Safeguarding Alliance and six UK Government-recognised British school associations and would undoubtedly help further strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader in safeguarding.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I say, briefly, that these seem to be incredibly sensible amendments, and I hope the Minister can accept them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak only briefly to these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The misconduct regime covered in these clauses is clearly very important for the protection of schoolchildren and maintaining the highest standards both in the classroom and outside, in public perception. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcomes what is new in these clauses because it is right and proportionate that employers and authorities should have the ability to take action regardless of when or where an incident took place, and whether the individual was a teacher in the profession at that time.
We welcome online and independent educational settings being brought into scope in addition to the possibility of investigating a suspicion or an incident regardless of how it came to light. Ensuring that this regime applies fully and is not open to exploitation by those who seek to identify and use loopholes is critical, and the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, highlight this.
We hope that the Government will take this opportunity to assure the Committee that there will be no gaps in this section of the Bill. How will the Minister ensure that these eminently sensible amendments are addressed rigorously?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the concerns expressed through the amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth. I hope I can provide some assurance about how the system operates in order to minimise the risks that noble Lords have identified here.
On Amendment 436ZA, Clause 45 captures individuals who are or have at any time been employed or engaged to carry out any teaching work at specific institutions in England. This clause ensures that those who commit serious misconduct are investigated where appropriate and prevented from carrying out teaching work. I understand the intention of this amendment to expand the regulatory regime to cover those who have worked overseas, although I understand that, on a technical basis, the amendment as written would not have that effect.
The existing regulatory regime applies to teachers in England and is operated by the TRA on behalf of the Secretary of State. The department’s view is that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to regulate the teaching profession overseas. The Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance already clearly sets out the legal requirements placed on schools and colleges to carry out pre-appointment checks when employing staff from overseas. This responsibility on schools goes further than the noble Baroness suggested in her remarks. It includes obtaining an enhanced DBS certificate, even if the individual has never been to the UK. In addition, schools and colleges must make any further checks they think are appropriate, so that any relevant events that occurred outside the UK can be considered. These checks would include, where available, criminal record checks for overseas applicants—the Home Office publishes guidance on that—and obtaining a letter from the professional regulating authority where the applicant has worked confirming that it has not imposed any sanctions or restrictions and/or that it is unaware of any reason why they may be unsuitable to teach.
Amendment 436ZB would introduce a new requirement for the Secretary of State to take reasonable efforts to include any changes of names on the prohibition list for the reasons that my noble friend outlined. There is already provision in legislation for the prohibition list to contain other such information in relation to the persons whose names are included on the list. Schools are already legally required to carry out a range of pre-appointment checks that can help to identify a name change. If a person changes their name, any legal documents need to be updated, such as a passport and driving licence. Keeping Children Safe in Education makes it clear that schools must verify a candidate’s identity to be sure that the person is who they claim to be, and that includes being aware of the potential for individuals to change their name. Best practice is checking the name on their birth certificate, where that is available.
I understand, as I said at the beginning, the concerns of noble Lords. I hope I have provided some reassurance about the processes that are in place. I urge my noble friend not to press his amendments, but I would be willing to continue the conversation to provide some assurance around the issues that he raised through them.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, particularly for the last sentiment in her wind-up on this small but perfectly formed debate on these amendments.
My noble friend referred to the reality that the Teaching Regulation Agency does not want to regulate all teachers overseas. That is true, but the system here in England regards it as the body that regulates those who are qualified to teach in this country. There still appears to be a loophole regarding teachers returning to this country to teach—and we should be encouraging people who have been attracted by teaching overseas to come home and teach in the English maintained sector, because we are short of teachers. Part of that must include the safeguarding arrangements to do so. I understand about enhanced certificates, criminal record checks and so on, but it is notoriously difficult, when teachers have a career across multiple jurisdictions, to ensure that you have absolute certainty that the records are complete in that respect.
I will willingly take up the Minister’s offer to meet her or whoever the Minister in the department is for safeguarding and the TRA. If I could bring along Emily from the Safeguarding Alliance, who has the expertise, so that we can discuss it, I would be very grateful. On that basis I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), in subsection (1), after “work” insert “in relation to National Curriculum subjects only””
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 436A. I declare an interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School.
Clause 46 is intended to have important consequences for the staffing of schools. As it stands, it certainly will, but I am not sure that they will be the ones that the Government expected and intended. My concern here is with the likely impact of the Bill on the teaching of vocational and technical subjects in schools and in sixth form colleges that are academies.
I believe the current Government recognise vocational and technical subjects, which of course include computer science and engineering, as central to its skills agenda, and I am absolutely sure that the Minister does. However, this Bill threatens to undermine them, because it will make it far more difficult and far rarer for schools and many sixth form colleges to provide high-quality teaching by subject specialists in these disciplines.
Clause 46 seeks to ensure that teaching in all schools is carried out by qualified staff, meaning staff with a teaching qualification. If you ask the general public whether they think it is a good idea for teachers to be qualified, they will, obviously enough, be inclined to say yes. However, if you ask them whether they would prefer subjects to be taught by subject specialists, they will also say yes. If you tell them that quite often this is not the case, especially in maths and science, they are rightly pretty horrified. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who thinks that a PGCE is a great substitute for having a trained chef teach catering or an IT expert deliver computer science. In an ideal world this would not be an either/or, but that is not the world we live in.
It is quite often, fortunately, possible to find highly qualified professionals who are willing and interested in part-time teaching and happy to undertake some practical, classroom-related training. But these people are mostly not interested in becoming full-time, school-based teachers, or, therefore, in undertaking an extensive teacher-training programme to gain certification that simply does not make sense for them in terms of time, cost or their future careers. The more in demand their expertise is in the labour market, and therefore the higher its priority in any skills agenda, the more this is the case. For example, finding good people to teach computer science is a nightmare, with huge gaps in availability across the country. Do we really want to make it more so?
Back in 2011, I undertook a review of vocational education for the Government, and at that time, the school system was infested with a large number of low-level supposedly vocational qualifications that were very easy to pass and counted as GCSE equivalents. These have now gone, but the relevant point here is how they were taught. Not only was their content often minimal and bizarrely paper-based, but in schools they were being taught to an overwhelming extent by people with no expertise or experience whatever in the area supposedly covered. Schools just drafted in whichever teacher had some spare time in their timetable or was volunteered for the job by their head of department, so you really might find a games teacher in front of a tourism class or an English teacher delivering health and social care. In fact, you very often did. When I asked why they could not at least bring in a vocational expert, the schools would explain to me that they could not, because there had to be a qualified teacher in the classroom all the time, at double the cost. That was not 100% true even then, but schools were just not going to take the risk.
Many noble Lords have argued strongly in the recent past for the pre-16 school curriculum to become less academically focused, and government policy for 16 to 19 year-olds includes a strong focus on T-levels. I am very aware of the controversy surrounding the delisting of some existing qualifications, including some BTECs, but I do not think I have heard a single person in this House, or indeed anywhere, argue that there should not be any post-16 courses that are technical and vocational in focus. But what is the point in spending huge amounts developing qualifications with employer input and then making it hugely unlikely that, in large numbers of our schools, anyone with direct experience of the occupations involved will be able to teach the students?
FE colleges are, and for the foreseeable future will remain, the most important providers of vocational and technical courses. This clause does not apply to them, but they are not and should not be the only providers in this area, not least because FE colleges have been financially squeezed and penalised compared with schools for many years and are finding it very hard to pay competitive salaries. I am particularly concerned about sixth-form colleges which are also academies. These institutions are often really excellent, the main destination for all 16 to 19 year-olds in their area, and offer a wide range of vocational and technical options.
When this Bill was first published, I tabled a couple of Written Questions trying to clarify the exact position of 16 to 19 academies, including such sixth-form colleges. I cannot say I was terribly reassured by the answers, which seemed to have been drafted in order to avoid giving me any very clear reply. The Minister at the Department for Education informed me that QTS
“has never been a requirement for further education”,
which I already knew and had not actually asked about. She said that Clause 46
“will apply to primary and secondary state funded schools”,
but I am afraid that the explanation of what was a school carefully said that the schools included various types of institutions and did not refer to the 16 to 19 group at all. Critically, she also said that there would be some limited exemptions set out in regulations to provide
“flexibility to employ individuals with the specialist skills and experience to support the needs of their pupils”.
That last bit sounds very encouraging and very nice but, as far as I know, we have not been given any clear indication of what those exemptions are going to be.
My experience—this is why I wanted to give some history from the vocational education review—is that schools, very reasonably and very sensibly, play safe. They are pretty paranoid, they do not have the time and energy to engage with detailed and opaque regulations, and they are really not going to take the risk that their interpretation of regulations is different from the one that DfE civil servants or Ofsted inspectors will adopt.
At Second Reading, there was some indication that university technical colleges and studio schools might be treated differently, recognising their specialist nature, but there is only a limited number of these and they are each, by design, focused and specialised. So I am worried that the current provision in the Bill will drive technical and vocational expertise out of a large section of our education system and I cannot find any evidence to suggest that this price is worth paying for the supposed defect of unqualified teachers in these classrooms.
I fully recognise that the change in QTS requirements is something to which the Government are fully committed and my amendment is therefore a probing amendment. It focuses the new requirements on national curriculum subjects. That includes any national curriculum subject being taught post 16, not just in classrooms pre 16. National curriculum subjects will normally be taught by full-time staff who are making teaching their career. My amendment would free up the vocational and technical curriculum, and also music and sport, in a way that is very simple and easy for institutions to understand and act on.
I am confident that the Government recognise the need for some flexibilities, so that schools can hire individuals with specialist skills, and it must surely be preferable to organise these flexibilities in a way that does not have DfE spending months and months drawing up and tabling complex regulations. I hope that I might be able to discuss with the Minister whether and how such flexibility might be protected. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate, because I find it quite difficult. I have some sympathy with the amendment that has just been moved, but my position is that teachers should have qualified teacher status. I have not got involved in the fringes of the debate because I think it is genuinely difficult to draw dividing lines. If I have to come down on one side or the other, I come down on the side of people having qualified teacher status. I strongly disapproved of the actions of the previous Government in taking away that requirement for either teachers in academies or for all teachers, I cannot recall.
I have always had sympathy with that range of subjects where, in my heart, I know that many people without QTS—instructor status or whatever—but with that practical experience could motivate children and deliver the curriculum, possibly to a higher standard and more effectively than other teachers. I know from experience as a teacher that very often what happens is that the teacher who is not a teacher of those subjects but who has qualified teacher status ends up teaching. I have sympathy with that and very much hope that, in the understanding that I think the Government have expressed, and in their promise to bring forward further information, some flexibility can be brought back around this arrangement of subjects. I am not talking about exceptions, because I do not want to go down that route; I am talking about an acknowledgement that we do not want to waste the talents of people who have got something to offer to our children. It would be a move that I would very much welcome.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 436B, 436C, 437 and 437A. Before I became a union leader, doing the work of the devil, according to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, I was a teacher. I worked in university departments of education for over 10 years in York, Liverpool and London, and a big part of that job was to give teachers initial teacher training at MA level and at PhD and research level. I know that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers and that the value of that training was essential.
It is not enough that teachers just have very good subject knowledge. They also need to understand professional concerns such as effective pedagogy. They need to learn about behaviour and safeguarding. In fact, initial teacher training is now completely transformed. The majority of it takes place in schools. There are various routes into QTS. It is much easier to work towards QTS while you are training or while you are a classroom assistant. Various Governments over a period of years have made the routes into initial teacher training and qualified teacher status much better. It is an important professional qualification which underpins not only the status of the profession but the quality of the education which children are getting.
I would also add that this is a social justice issue, I think, because the fact is that the children who most need teachers who are qualified in the subjects they are teaching are, at the moment, the least likely to get them. DfE evidence to the STRB in 2025 shows clearly that pupils in schools with the highest percentage of pupil premium are more likely than other pupils to be taught by unqualified teachers and non-specialists. They receive a narrower curriculum than other pupils, are less likely to be offered physics as a subject option, and are more likely to be taught by unqualified teachers and teachers teaching outside of their subject area. That is why, over the course of last year, I established and chaired the independent Teaching Commission, whose report, Shaping the Future of Teaching, examines the causes of the teacher supply crisis, which has been two decades in the making—in particular, its effects on pupils whose start in life is disadvantaged, who most need qualified teachers to compensate for the 40% disadvantage gap that is created by poverty before they start school.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to explain my Amendment 437A, which relates to qualified teachers, and to offer a different point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted—although we are both trying to achieve the same thing, I think.
The first thing to establish, if one does not unquestioningly accept the bureaucratic definition, is what exactly a qualified teacher is. We have drifted into accepting that the postgraduate certificate in education, or PGCE, is the gold standard. With the reforms made by the previous Government to the teacher training standards, the new inspection framework and the accreditation exercise, it has got better, but it is not the be-all and end-all. Is it really the kitemark that we should use as the standard for good teachers?
I put to noble Lords two hypothetical but frequently occurring sets of circumstances. A newly qualified graduate with a degree in, say, maths or one of the sciences decides that they would like to spend a year or two teaching the subject in which they have specialised. Across the corridor, a person of the same age who completed an undergraduate degree in sociology or politics but has completed their PGCE asks to teach maths. All other things being equal, who would you rather have teaching your child the specialist subject? I know which one I would choose; that is the brutal reality.
Anyway, what business is it of the DfE, sitting remotely over 22,000 schools, to be imposing rules like this? I have met heads who support both sides of these arguments. Why are we not letting them be the judge? For example, in some parts of England, such as London, it is easier to recruit PGCE graduates than it is in the provinces. How can bureaucrats in the DfE possibly know how to run a school better? We touched on that earlier. We have a mixed economy at the moment—and thank goodness we do, for reasons I will come on to in a moment.
I do not want noble Lords to think that I am dead against the PGCE. The coalition Government introduced the concept of SCITT—school-centred initial teacher training—and I have just finished my term as a trustee of the National Institute of Teaching, which is supporting SCITTs across the country that have been set up at the behest of the DfE. It has helped increase the number of graduates entering the SCITT programme; indeed, we have one in my academy trust, and we end up hiring many of our PGCE students to teach. So why fiddle around with this? What are the Government seeking to achieve, other than mouthing slogans about the need to have qualified teachers in the classroom? It is insulting to those who have studied demanding degrees and have acquired skills that are so badly needed in schools to be called “unqualified”, particularly when most of these young people could go into other, more highly paid jobs.
We turn next to the elephant in the room: the shortage of teachers in the state system. The most recent DfE data that I could find tells me that, in 2023-24, there were 22,700 postgraduate trainees, of which 21,210 achieved QTS status. However, that was down from 22,437 in the previous year and 29,715 in 2021-22. Of those 21,210 trainees, 15,900 are teaching in state schools—a drop from 21,971 in 2021-22. The data is inviolable, but perhaps the Minister has more up-to-date data.
On teacher shortages, the DfE data tells me that, in 2024-25—the most recent year—against the 21,210 to which I referred, the estimated need was for more than 33,000 trainees. Secondary recruitment was at only 62% of the target. In secondary, there are acute shortfalls in maths, physics and computing, respectively hitting only 31%, 37% and 43% of the DfE’s targets. Again, perhaps the Minister can correct me on any of this.
The next bit is what really breaks my heart; it shows, perhaps, that I have common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. Teacher shortages are especially acute in schools with disadvantaged pupil intakes—that just breaks my heart. I came into politics 15 years ago to go for that, but it is just getting worse. There are more vacancies and they remain open for longer, so it is the poor kids who suffer. The National Audit Office tells us in its April report that teacher recruitment targets have been missed every year but one in the last 10; the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, said that it is over two decades. This is a structural problem. The DfE has missed its targets in 13 out of 18 subjects in the most recent year, despite a DfE recruitment budget of £700 million. It will be interesting to see whether that level of funding is sustained in this autumn’s Budget with all the other pressures that the Government face; I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.
This is not about having a swipe at a Labour Government—we struggled too—but they have no credible plan to turn the tide. Forcing through this new measure will just make the job harder for everyone on the front line, with children being the losers. It will deter potentially excellent teachers, particularly in specialist subjects, from spending a few years in the teaching profession if they have had to spend nine months training—and probably paying for the privilege, although I accept that there are some bursaries.
The NAO adds that the percentage of less-experienced teachers in the most disadvantaged schools is far higher than in average schools, which goes to our earlier point. They have higher staff turnover and a higher percentage of unfilled vacancies. In the interests of time, I have not talked about retention, but, broadly, one-third of secondary teachers leave within five years of joining the profession, so we need to keep filling the funnel. The only way to hold on to teachers for longer, in my view, would be to pay more in the early years—that is not really practical in the current circumstances—and to support schools in taking much stronger action on bad behaviour. From my experience, that is why many teachers, in particular female ones, leave—and can you blame them?
Then we have the cherry on the cake: Teach First. It is another great Labour invention and is responsible for pumping thousands—around 16,000—of superb teachers into the state system over the past 20 years. Some 150 are now head teachers and the proportion of Teach Firsters who go into senior leadership roles is seven times higher than for comparably qualified teachers.
What training do they get? They get six weeks and then they are on the front line. When some of these facts were presented to the Government, the best they could manage was saying, “Oh, well, you can stay, so don’t worry”. So where is the intellectual coherence? My amendment is very straightforward: it would widen the definition of what a qualified teacher is to include degree-qualified professionals who teach in this area of specialisation.
This clause is a classic example of why I get so frustrated with many parts of the Bill. We have had hundreds of hours of debate on things like this that will only make it harder for the people who are trying to improve education, particularly for disadvantaged young people.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 495, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and to which I have added my name. This amendment, after Clause 62, seeks to insert a new clause on teacher training reviews. I declare my interests as president of the LGA, chair of Sport Wales and chair of the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, which is actively looking at enrichment around the school day to help children develop more skills that will help them across the whole of their lives.
It feels like we have been discussing teacher training for sport and physical activity for years. Quite often, certainly around primary-age teacher training, only about four hours of instruction are given on how to deliver physical education. It is a very difficult subject to teach because, even at the youngest age, there is a huge range of capability in children. The amendment is important because it is not just about finding a new set of Olympians and Paralympians but about developing physical activity for life. The amendment is required because of the state of inactivity in England and in the UK.
Women in Sport data shows that 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy. The organisation ukactive has published lots of research on obesity rates in children, which seem to be creeping up and up. While I acknowledge that the school cannot do everything around encouraging children to be fit, healthy and active, it can play a huge part.
If we look to another subject, we do not expect children to be able to do trigonometry without teaching them the basics of maths; there is a path to follow. However, we expect children to play sport without teaching them the basics of physical literacy. It is really important that we learn from elsewhere. In Wales in 2012 and 2013, we came very close to giving physical literacy the same status as literacy and numeracy in schools; it would have been part of the teacher training and measured by Estyn. This is important because it is about a healthy mind, body and spirit and about developing a certain level of activity. We know people’s relationship with physical activity: they drop in and out, and girls especially drop out at the ages of 18 and 13. We have to do something to change that pattern of behaviour.
This is also really important for disabled people. Quite often, PE teachers, through a lack of experience, will still send disabled children to the library—and that is happening more and more. You would think that, on the back of some amazing Paralympic success, there would be better attempts at inclusion, but that is not happening. A number of parents write to me to tell me that their children are being excluded from PE lessons under health and safety rules. Alternatively, they are told that, because there is not another disabled child in the class, they cannot participate or play sport with anyone else, so they are excluded.
His Majesty’s Government already offer support through the Inclusion 2028 programme, which is a step forward. They have worked with the Youth Sports Trust and 50 lead schools to develop this knowledge. I would be interested to understand how that is developing. We have to develop much wider support to ensure that the patterns of inactivity are broken and that we have a fitter and healthier nation.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I hope she does not mind me calling my noble friend.
I will speak to Amendments 437 and 495, which are in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who deeply regrets that he cannot be with us today. Amendment 437 speaks for itself. I have attached my name to Amendment 495; I have worked with my noble friend Lord Moynihan on it for quite some time.
Our concerns are the weaknesses of the sport and physical literacy components of teacher training in the UK. They are most pronounced for generalist primary school teachers, who often lack sufficient training, confidence and practical opportunities. These issues are compounded by the low professional status for physical education within schools and it not being prioritised. There is also a minimum time allocation: generalist primary teachers typically receive very little training in physical education during their initial teacher training—ITT—programmes; one source cited an average of four to six hours. This is widely seen as woefully inadequate for preparing them to deliver high-quality PE.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group of amendments in the same vein as have my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Bousted, and emphasise that we need qualified teachers, particularly for the most disadvantaged pupils in our country.
Some years ago, prior to the pandemic, I was for seven years a senior executive at TES—the Times Educational Supplement, as it once was. During that tenure, I set up the Tes Institute, which was a teacher training institute. It is now the fifth-largest qualifier of teachers in England. The main route that we opened up through the Tes Institute was something that we branded “straight to teaching”: in essence, it was the opportunity for people who were working as instructors, who had instructor grades of pay but had experience of teaching, to be assessed for how close to the teaching standards they would be; then a bespoke professional development programme could be devised for them so that they could reach that set of standards and get QTS.
Incidentally—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—I was surprised to learn that a PGCE did not qualify you to teach; there is not an equivalence between the two. Qualified teacher status is a separate thing, but there is an assumption within the system that a PGCE equals qualified teacher status.
The process of developing Straight to Teaching taught me that there are plenty of people who are working as instructors in our schools in this country, in effect, and who could be taken through to become qualified teachers on the job while carrying on being paid and using their experience. That could apply to those in vocational settings as well as in more academic settings; it says to me that there are routes.
Teaching apprenticeships are now being opened up for those people who have the sorts of qualifications and experience that have been discussed in this debate to be hired by schools and then, within a reasonable time, to be taken into qualified teacher status. That is something we should grab because it is important to value pedagogic training as well as subject knowledge. It is also important to value training in bullying, to which Amendment 439 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, refers. It is important that people should understand and be trained around special educational needs. It is important that they should be trained around physical literacy, as was explored by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Sater, in their important speeches. Having training programmes to achieve qualified teacher status for those people who are brought into classrooms to teach as instructors is something that we should expect as part of the move towards every teacher becoming qualified.
Finally, I support Amendment 495, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, has added her name and which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I support it in the terms that they set out around the importance of sport and physical literacy. Like them, I was a member of your Lordships’ National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee. I hope that we will have a chance to revisit what we recommended then to see whether it remains valid for a new Government to take forward.
I also support Amendment 495 on the basis of some of the other things that are listed around a review of ITT, such as financial literacy, AI literacy and media literacy. These have become increasingly important but are currently neglected in initial teacher training. Once the curriculum and assessment review has reported, it will be timely for there to be a review of whether we need to change aspects of initial teacher training in order to take account of that review.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a secondary school teacher, I admit that I am conflicted by this group of amendments. Noble Lords have highlighted the benefits of getting industry experts to teach in schools. At our school, we use architects to teach the architecture programme. I recently went to a UTC that gets employers to come in and set projects for students. The employers then regularly come in to look at the projects so that the students get real-world, real-industry training. It is unrealistic to expect these employers to get teaching qualifications.
I am afraid that I cannot let Amendment 438 go. I have admired the optimism and creativity of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and I acknowledge the sterling work that the elective home-schooling community is doing. Like many in this Committee, I have undertaken formal teacher training. I have QTS, which does not appear to be the gold standard any more, I am afraid. I had one disastrous attempt at home-schooling during lockdown, when I tried to teach my primary school-aged daughter maths. She is still shouting at me even now.
To say that somebody who has experienced only home-schooling can go from that to teaching 32 boisterous students in the last period on a Friday, without any formal training, and impart any knowledge at all is optimistic at best. The noble Lord, who is sadly not in his place, unwittingly belittles two years of pretty intense training for mainstream teachers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Sater, in saying that physical education is one of those things that we all decry and think somebody else should be doing. The fact of the matter is that there are certain physical skills that you need. In racquet sports, for example, you need to know how to move your feet, how to hold the racquet and so on; I say that in front of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, with, shall we say, a degree of fear. There are certain basic skills that you will need to get the best out of a sport and to see whether you have any potential for it—if you do not have them, you are not going to find out.
When it comes to how to integrate those abilities into PE lessons, you need some training and structure. If you turn around and say to your outside agency, “This is possible, so please make sure that it happens”, you are taking a step further forward. So a degree of knowledge is required.
We have just mentioned the fact that special educational needs are a factor. I have managed to make a couple of speeches without mentioning them, so I shall revert to the norm. If you have special educational needs but somebody who is trying to teach you does not understand what they are about, chances are you are going to fail. They may say, “Everybody take some notes”, but you may have one person who is dyspraxic so cannot do that easily and two people who are dyslexic so will not be able to read them back and will not get everything down in time. You have to have some degree of knowledge to reach them—and those are fairly commonly occurring conditions. You will need some training somewhere in this.
I do not say that the existing pathways are always there because, if they were, I would not be making this point in the first place. However, we need to have that degree of training—or at least the awareness to say, “Right, I don’t know how you do this. Can you defer and find me another pathway?” That would be very helpful. I look forward to exploring this matter, both in this Bill and in future Bills, to make sure that we get something in place that means that more teachers can become teachers of special educational needs—not just saying that they are, because more of the same does not work. What they have at the moment is failing them.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I want to come in on this group to inject a note of pragmatism into the discussion. First, I observe that the current freedom does not seem to have created significant problems in practice. To ask that classic question, “What is the problem that the clause in the Bill is trying to solve?”
Secondly, it is absolutely right that there are excellent programmes—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, described them—to encourage people to move from instructor and teaching assistant roles into qualified teacher status. Those are excellent—they should exist and people should be encouraged, of course—but the pragmatic point is to think about all the people who might choose to be teachers but choose instead, for example, to go off and be tutors, lavishing their skills and expertise in a very small subject on children whose parents can afford to pay. They are then lost to the state system because they simply will not go down that path.
For that reason, I support the amendments put forward by my noble friends Lady Barran and Lord Agnew—as well as the pragmatic amendment proposed at the start of this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich—as a way of making sure that the potential impact of this clause is not the opposite of what I am sure the Government intend. It is absolutely right to want both to upskill teachers and to make sure that as much teaching as possible happens with qualified teachers, but it would be desperately sad if many subjects and a lot of the potential school experience for millions of children were diluted for that purity of principle.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. The current system does not create a lot of problems because most schools are teams. If you really need a particular skill, so you bring in someone who has that skill but lacks the other skills that one needs to teach well, the community rallies round and makes sure both that everyone works together and that the experience for the children is good. What I would like to see is not a system that says, “Go away, we don’t want you unless you have QTS first”, but one that welcomes people in and says, “Let’s bring you on”—the sort of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was describing. Such an attitude to bringing in the skills that we need seems to me to be the right one.
There are lots of people out there who could contribute their skills if it were made possible for them to do that in a way that works for them. As my noble friend said, there are a lot of young people who tutor and do it really well and who, therefore, develop an interest in the idea that they might be teachers although they want to get there in a way that suits them. There are lots of older people in their fifties and sixties who are coming to the end of their career and know that they are not going to go anywhere else. They may be consultants in IT and just do not want to sit down and write another computer system. They would love to get involved with young people and help to bring them on. You have to make it easy for them and find a way in for them. Creating something as inflexible as this Bill does seems destructive.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, is right: there is a crisis in the supply of teachers, not just the numbers but also, as he said, in specialism. There is also the great worry that we are seeing the lowest number of people wanting to go into teaching and the highest number of teachers leaving early. But his solution is not my solution.
I have said in this House on many occasions that the most important thing in a child’s life is the quality of their teacher. We do not, as a society, value teachers. Having a qualification does not make you a good teacher. We can remember that, in the 30s, 40s and maybe even the 50s, someone with a university degree would come out of university and think they could teach. You cannot always. Occasionally, they could do it. Those who could not do it at secondary modern schools quickly tried to transfer to grammar schools, where they thought it might be easier. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, rightly said, if you have in the playground or on the sports field some challenging pupils haring around and you do not have an understanding of child development or behaviour management, you cannot cope. You would not, for example, expect someone who has a law degree to suddenly step into a court; you just would not have it. We have to work out how on earth we can ensure that people want to become teachers.
It is not just about training to become a teacher; we have to support them when they are in teaching. It is not just about salary, although that helps. It is about continuous professional development. It is about the campaigns about workload that many of us have constantly gone on about. I think that is a simple thing to solve. Teachers have said to me any number of times, “If I could just get on with the job of teaching without having to do all these other tasks”.
That does not stop visitors coming into school. It does not stop experts who have a particular knowledge being linked to a school and coming in from time to time to talk to the children. By the way, high-level teaching assistants can teach in schools. Teaching assistants at level 2 can teach, as long as they are supervised by the teacher. Maybe we should be encouraging teaching assistants to go on to become qualified teachers. We cannot have in our schools a situation where qualified teachers are undervalued and where we increasingly think the answer is to bring in unqualified so-called experts.
Turning to my amendment on bullying, I am a bit surprised that it is in this group—I think that the issue is covered in one of the later groups as well. It is worrying that currently 35% of 10 to 15 year-olds have experienced bullying of some sort. In 2023, 1.5 million children suffered bullying. Bullying happens in all sorts of ways. It can be physical, it can be emotional, it can be verbal and it can be cyberbullying. We seem to think that the important thing is to sort out mobile phones, which will stop bullying and make pupils more attentive to learning. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, as we probably all do, and mobile phones can increasingly be used for bullying pupils as well.
When a pupil is bullied, a number of things happen. It is not just physical, where there might be bruising or whatever; it is also emotional, of course. It leads to increasing absence from school. Children are frightened to go to school, because the bully might be there, so that affects their school attendance and we have talked at length about how important school attendance is. It will affect their grades when they come to do their exams. They will not be handing in homework, and so it goes on. We have to ensure that we take the whole issue of bullying seriously, which I know the Government do, and the amendment spells out some of the things that we need to do. I hope, when we come back to this at a later stage, to be able to look at it in more detail.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group has elicited another excellent debate and, like other noble Lords, on these Benches we remain unclear what problem the Government are trying to solve. The Government’s own data shows that the percentage of teachers without a formal teaching qualification has been pretty stable in both primary and secondary schools for the past 10 years. It sits at about 1% in primary and between 1.5% and 2% in secondary, which is about 6,000 teachers out of a workforce of over 450,000. We are talking about tiny numbers, largely in specialist subjects, which has not changed over a very long time. I could not find—and I did look—any evidence that suggests that teachers without a formal teaching qualification provide lower-quality education.
That is not to disagree in any way with any noble Lord who has spoken already. We know that the quality of the teacher at the front of the classroom is the single biggest and most important influence on the education that a child receives. The Government have argued that one would not want to be seen by an unqualified lawyer or dentist. As other noble Lords have said, any of us, if asked, “Would you like your child to be taught by a qualified or unqualified teacher?”, would say, “A qualified teacher”. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, if asked, “Would you like to be taught by someone with a physics degree and 10 years in the industry, or someone with a degree in English and QTS?”, I think, to be fair, the answers might be different. Amendments 437 and 437A in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Agnew of Oulton have my support, because they just apply common sense, focusing on the combination of specific subject expertise at degree level, in the case of my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment, and demonstrable competence in teaching.
Now, having listened to the debate, I am beginning to wonder whether, given the tiny number of unqualified teachers in the system, this whole clause is not a bit of a red herring. We have a number of routes: there is the assessment-only route to get QTS, where a school or initial teacher training—SCITT—is able to award qualified teacher status to someone who has GCSEs in English and maths and a degree, and who demonstrates suitability; they obviously read my noble friend Lord Agnew’s amendment. If we have an assessment-only route, we have higher-level teaching assistants, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to, and we have teachers from FE colleges with QTLS, rather than QTS, who can currently teach in secondary schools—if all those routes are followed, maybe we can close what I argue is an inconsequential gap in a way that will allow the Government to say that everyone now has QTS, but it does not really change anything on the ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place, talked earlier about what the public care about. I think they care about Governments focusing on real issues rather than this, which feels like a slightly confected problem.
My amendments in this group follow a familiar pattern. By calling for the clause not to stand part of the Bill, I am offering the Government the logical, simple course of action. There just is no need for this clause, unless the Minister can give us evidence of the harm being done or the lower outcomes for children from teachers without QTS.
The other amendments seek to limit the damage done to schools from the clause as drafted, particularly the schools that we all care about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, and my noble friend Lord Agnew talked about: schools in the most disadvantaged communities. My Amendment 436C would exempt shortage subjects from the constraints of the clause, and my Amendment 436B would give schools five years rather than one, in which time a teacher would have to achieve a teaching qualification. That is particularly important—I hope the Minister will comment on this—for special schools, where the percentage of teachers without a teaching qualification is often higher.
I have added my name to Amendment 436A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which limits this measure to core subjects in the national curriculum. The noble Baroness spoke with enormous experience and insight into the potential impacts of the measure, particularly in relation to technical and vocational qualifications.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, gave the Government the answer to at least a start on reducing bullying in schools by introducing a smartphone ban, which I am hoping the Minister’s new ministerial colleague will persuade her of, because apparently in another life he thought it was a good idea.
The issue that the clause raises is a point of principle, again, about autonomy and accountability. Like all the others, it is easy to say that the clause on its own will not be too harmful; that may or may not be true, but, overall, the Bill is fundamentally centralising and will undo the ingredients that have improved English education so much over the past 14 years. We on these Benches deeply oppose the principle of clawing back the discretion that we have given to school and trust leaders. We remain baffled why the Government want to undo what has worked well and do not focus instead on areas that deserve their attention. We would rather see the expansion of freedoms to maintained schools than their withdrawal from academies.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, teaching is a profession and we are unapologetic about having a high bar for training and qualification. It is what parents, head teachers and the Government should rightly expect, which is why the Government committed to this measure in our manifesto. It will ensure that new teachers have the essential training and induction that they need to help children achieve.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I thank the Minister very sincerely for the clarification on 16 to 19 academies, which I had so dismally failed to obtain. It would be extremely helpful if she could write to noble Lords and generally cascade the information about current flexibilities and the position of the Government on their future, because there is a lot of both ignorance and uncertainty on that out there at the moment. Given the huge challenges of recruiting people in these areas—these are people who are not planning to make a career of teaching—that would be very helpful.
I have learned a great deal from this debate, which has been very helpful, especially because there was a great deal I did not know about initial teacher training as it now stands. It has been very helpful and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Spielman
“(5A) Subsection (1)(b)(ii) does not apply in relation to an educational institution that has received an OFSTED rating of Good or equivalent in the last three years.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Agnew seeks to ensure that academies which are rated as “Good” are not required to follow the National Curriculum.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 440 and 442 from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew. He tabled these amendments because of his concerns that the new national curriculum remains so uncertain. The interim report has given little indication of what might follow in the autumn or next year, and he believes that with that level of uncertainty these amendments are appropriate. I have taken this on at short notice and will listen to what the Minister has to say and respond.
Before I sit down, I want to give a warning. We have been here before. In 2004, the national curriculum obligation applied to virtually all schools, as very few schools were academies at that time. At that point, inspection was stripped down to remove subject-level scrutiny from most of the curriculum. English and maths in primary schools were specifically examined, but beyond that almost all subject-level inspection was removed.
What was the consequence? Over time, in primary schools and at key stage 3 there was a drastic reduction in what was taught. Various reports show that, such as Key Stage 3: The Wasted Years? from Ofsted. Primary schools, especially once the science tests were dropped in 2009, taught less and less outside English and maths.
At key stage 4, this was compounded by the equivalence concept brought into performance tables at the same time. All manner of distortions and gaming emerged in the secondary curriculum, and the DfE had to play whack-a-mole for years each time a new game popped up—some people will remember things such as the European computer driving licence, equivalent qualifications that were worth four GCSEs, double entry and so on. It would be unfortunate if we went back to that world.
I understand that the Ofsted changes that have been announced will remove the very limited subject-level scrutiny that was reintroduced in 2019 to counteract this loss of real curriculum. My concern is that the national curriculum obligation included in this clause could become a dead letter, simply because there will not be effective scrutiny to make sure that is what actually happens in practice. We could once again be in a situation where only the things that are tested—which, especially in primary schools, is quite a limited set and at key stage 3 is nothing at all—will get taught. That is a warning.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran’s proposition that Clause 47 does not stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 as it stands strips academies of one of their key freedoms: the ability to innovate and tailor their curriculum approaches to meet the specific needs of the pupils and communities they serve. We have clear evidence that allowing schools this freedom, with clear accountability mechanisms in place, improves outcomes for pupils.
This summer, free schools outperformed other non-selective state schools in both GCSE and A-level results, playing an important role in driving up standards, particularly in areas of significant deprivation and low educational attainment. One of the strengths of free schools has been their diversity, representing a varied range of educational philosophies and high-quality curricula.
In a recent report, New Schools Network set out a number of principles that it had identified across high-impact free schools—those with a strong track record, outstanding Ofsted ratings, strong exam results and high levels of participation, engagement, progression and achievement. Among them was a relentless focus on the fundamentals of learning, which often drew on international and well-evidenced school and curriculum models and practices, from Teach Like a Champion to Expeditionary Learning, KIP and High Tech High. Drawing on the best evidence and proven ideas of what works, schools have used the flexibility in the current system to adapt their curriculum to suit their students. They, after all, know their pupils best.
The NSM report sets out a number of examples where free schools have used their curriculum freedoms to the benefit of their pupils. Marine Academy Plymouth has developed its own curriculum around marine themes relating to the city’s coastal tradition. School 21’s curriculum is project-oriented, with curriculum and pedagogical practices allowing pupils to choose personalised opportunities for growth which fit in with their passions and interests. For children with special needs, the Lighthouse School in Leeds, the first special free school, has supported a growing network of similar institutions. Lighthouse has shared its unique curriculum with more than 50 other school leaders and demonstrated how its innovative approach has allowed it to design provisions specifically aimed at pupils with autism, while spreading best practice across the system.
Allowing this flexibility does not and should not mean a free-for-all, and that is certainly not the case now. While academies are not required to follow the national curriculum, they are required by their funding agreements to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, and of course there are further safeguards via the Ofsted inspection framework and exam system. Again, the Government are proposing changes to dilute the autonomy of academies when it is not clear what the systemic problem is that this clause is trying to solve.
As we have heard, the national curriculum itself is currently under review, which is creating more uncertainty. As a result of provisions in the Bill, academies will be forced to sign up to a new curriculum, the content of which the Government have not decided yet, without knowing if there will be suitable flexibilities within it for them to appropriately tailor their curriculum to the specific needs and contexts of their communities.
As has previously been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the breadth of powers included in the Bill would allow a Secretary of State in future to potentially be much more prescriptive and expansive in relation to the detail of any new national curriculum if they were so inclined—again, a further reduction in academies’ autonomy.
I do not believe this is the right approach. Our education system as a whole has benefited from the ability of teachers to be creative, to innovate and to adapt their curriculum to respond to the unique needs of their pupils. Unfortunately, Clause 47 as it stands is a retrograde step.
Lord Sewell of Sanderstead (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has not put down an amendment, I will give some collective memory context to what we are debating today. I support most of the amendments. I hope they will not be rejected, but we will see what happens.
Yesterday, I listened to the speech made by the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson. She rightly boasted about the legacy of Ernest Bevin and how he understood that real social mobility is about working-class people and the agency to aspire. Sadly, as she reeled off the achievements of the labour movement since Bevin, she forgot perhaps one of the most radical and important achievements from Labour: the setting up of the academies—yes, a Labour invention.
It may have been this philosophy that inspired Tony Blair in 2002 to set up the Hackney Learning Trust. This became the birthplace of the academy movement. Luckily enough, I was part of the board that was tasked to transform Hackney education. Some would say that our task was impossible; we were faced with a Labour education authority that totally failed all of its students and parents. Hackney was given the label not only as the worst education district in Britain but the worst in Europe.
In those days, boys from an African-Caribbean background were at the bottom of the heap. When I remember the early days, there was joy from the current education authority in handing us the power. Yes, there were some grumblings about what it knew about the new model of academies, but there was a real sense that this was the answer.
Our first task was to find an iconic school which was regarded as the worst performing and transform that. We set about closing the then Hackney Downs School and built the fantastic Mossbourne Academy, led by Sir Michael Wilshaw. We were given a 10-year contract. Within two years, Hackney was on its way to moving from the worst place to educate your child to the best. For African-Caribbean boys, the results zoomed to above the national average.
How did we do this? It was because of a number of factors that are in danger from this schools Bill. Great school leaders were a key element. Another was the massively high academic expectations of the students. There were also rigorous school improvement methods—no school was allowed to fail Ofsted. We were creating schools of excellence that could go toe to toe with the best of our private schools. For many ethnic-minority students, particularly black students, the context of a traditional, well-disciplined school with high expectations and great leadership—and no evidence of identity politics; that made no difference at all to them—made the difference. For me, the big difference was that we gave schools autonomy on the curriculum, discipline, hiring of staff and allocation of funding. These were key elements which drove that success. One of the things bringing us up into the highest levels of educational outcomes was that drive.
The proposal to remove automatic academisation for underperforming schools and replace it with something else is problematic. My concern is that we would probably be going back to those really dark days when schools, particularly in London, were going backwards.
I want to share a quote from one of the leaders of City of London Academies Trust. If he were here, he would probably put it as a plea. He says:
“I was fortunate to be granted the rare privilege of founding a government-funded state school in Newham, the second most deprived borough in London. Thanks to the freedoms afforded by the academies programme, that school now outperforms many independent and grammar schools. It regularly sends pupils to Oxbridge and Ivy League universities on full scholarships worth £250,000 each. I am by no means alone in this achievement. Across the country, others have used the opportunities of academisation to become beacons of hope in their communities and rank among the highest in national league tables for educational outcomes”.
I return to old Ernest Bevin and what he would have loved. He would probably have liked the academy movement and would turn in his grave at some of these new attempts to disrupt what is working for students from poor backgrounds and ethnic minorities. At the heart of some of these changes is the idea that academies are perhaps not working for the majority of the population or special needs students. I think that misses the point. We need to be creative in spreading a model that can work for all pupils, not dismantle and tinker with a great asset for social mobility. That is the key element in this.
I end with a quote from Ernest Bevin:
“I did not land on the rocks—I was launched from them”.
That is the spirit of academies, which enable schools and pupils to do their best and realise the best that they have. In London, we have created a great asset that was, in a sense, birthed by Labour. We carried it on, and we want to ensure that we have something we can be proud of. We should think again when looking at the curriculum to see whether we can find a way of ensuring that those students continue to do their best. We now have schools in London which can reach better results even than Eton. Noble Lords here who taught 20 or 30 years ago would not have dreamed of that. Now we can do it. That has come about through the way we have used academies and that process. I urge the Government not to tinker with their own success.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a teacher at Mossbourne, who has one child there and one who has just left, I—slightly emotionally—thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead. I cannot thank him and the Hackney Learning Trust enough. I cannot add anything to that except to quote the chair of a multi-academy trust I was talking to a couple of days ago, who said: “Education is one of the few things in this country that really works. Why do they want to dismantle it?” I can leave it at that.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise as I was not able to speak at Second Reading as I missed the start of the session for family reasons. So I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I make a contribution linked to this group and Amendment 497 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who is not in his place, but I thank him for highlighting the important issue of artificial intelligence.
I declare an interest as chair of Camden STEAM. One of the initiatives it has helped catalyse and launch this year is Camden Learning’s first-in-the-world trailblazing pilot: the London AI Campus. Developed in collaboration with Google, it aims to inspire, inform and educate students and teachers in AI and digital skills. If any noble Lords are interested in further information or, indeed, a visit to the centre, I ask them to please get in touch with me.
The Department for Education articulates its purpose as
“the department for opportunity … breaking the link between background and success”.
The national curriculum review, which is nearing its conclusion, is vital to that mission for many reasons, including, as one of its terms of reference states, in developing
“a cutting-edge curriculum, equipping children and young people with the essential knowledge and skills which will enable them to adapt and thrive in the world and workplace of the future”.
I hope the contributions in this Committee session will be helpful to Becky Francis, the chair, as she focuses on this area in the second stage of her work. She has rightly talked about the review pragmatically following a path of “evolution, not revolution”, recognising what has been working successfully, such as the advances the previous Government made in reading and maths.
However, while I support that approach, we are also in a revolution in the world of work, brought on by rapid advances in technology, with the attendant need to effectively support growth and productivity, particularly in the key sectors of the industrial strategy and in our regions. As well as the central issue of AI, which, I am sure, the noble Lord would have eloquently spoken about and has focused on, employers and respected research bodies identify creativity as critical to our future too. As raised in this House before, remedial work and investment are needed to address the consequences of previous policy decisions that have led to the Cultural Learning Alliance’s 2025 report card showing arts entries in GCSEs falling by 48% since 2010, with design and technology seeing an above 70% drop. This has led to an arts entitlement gap highlighted by the disparity between attainment in state-funded schools and independent ones.
It is welcome, therefore, that the importance of addressing these issues has been recognised and that the Prime Minister has spoken about the need to put creativity back at the heart of the curriculum. However, to be effective and up to date, that remediation has to do a number of things. One is the existing suite of qualifications in the arts being modernised to take into account the impact of technology, including artificial intelligence, and the attendant resources required to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition. This includes capital investment, teacher recruitment and training, online learning, supporting talented children’s access to centres of specialist excellence, and so on. Critically, there is the need to address the need for the new: new qualifications and courses to deliver what is necessary for the future of work.
One of our USPs as a country is our talent in combining creativity and digital innovation—createch —which is driving change across a number of industries, creating new businesses, new roles and new jobs. Ukie, the trade body for computer games, on the back of its very successful Digital Schoolhouse project and with the support of the Creative Industries Council, has put forward a case for the development of a digital creativity GCSE as an alternative to the current computer science qualification. The inconsistent digital skills teaching in schools since the introduction of the computing curriculum a decade ago has led to a postcode lottery in digital education. These new approaches would offer young people other pathways to high-reward skills and jobs, and we wait to hear whether it will be supported as part of the review.
There is a lot to think about. At the same time, we need to move forward with launching the national curriculum. I would be interested to hear my noble friend’s views on whether, as the amendment suggests, a process of evolution and review might be needed for the curriculum so that it continues to develop in step with the revolution that is unfolding before us.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502D, which stands in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for his support. This amendment seeks to make financial education a mandatory part of the primary school curriculum from year 1. Why do we need it? Its aims are simple but important: to ensure that children begin to develop the knowledge and skills needed to understand and manage money from an early age.
In a world of increasing financial complexity, where our children encounter such things as targeted advertising, digital payments and online scams, often before they have even reached secondary school, it is more important than ever that financial literacy should not be left to chance. While financial education is a statutory part of the secondary school curriculum in England, it is not a requirement in primary schools. This creates a gap at precisely the stage when children begin forming lifelong money habits, and it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, where such education is embedded in the national curriculum at an earlier age than in England.
The Money and Pensions Service has found that these habits develop as early as age seven, yet we wait until secondary school to introduce compulsory learning. Without embedding financial education from year 1, we risk missing the most formative opportunity to equip our children with the tools that they need to manage money with confidence and make good financial decisions throughout their lives.
According to a research report from Santander UK, at the beginning of this year, out of 2,000 pupils aged 18 to 21, only 26% reported receiving any financial education at school. Without a fundamental understanding of money management, our young people are increasingly turning to online sources for financial guidance and information, especially social media—that comes with its own risks—as they step into an age of financial independence. This cannot be right.
RedSTART Educate, a charity for primary school children that delivers financial education through progressive learning, which has now merged with Money Ready, is a long-standing campaigner for financial education to become statutory in the primary curriculum in England. It tells us that levels of financial literacy in the UK are low and falling, and highlights how awareness of debt, saving and investments needs to begin in primary schools. It is hard to believe, yet the data show, that from their programmes in primary schools 90% of children say that they now understand how budgeting can help them achieve goals and 80% of children can explain the difference between lending and giving. This is surely sufficiently compelling for financial literacy to be taught in primary schools; importantly, it will assist in dealing with the significant inequalities that exist across the country.
However, as the Social Market Foundation highlights, for financial education to make a difference, it is important to start young. Socioeconomic inequalities in financial understanding can be seen at the age of 11. According to Young Enterprise, which has called for financial education to be a core subject in primary school, only one in three primary-aged children receives any financial education, and where it is taught the provision is patchy. In other words, it is a postcode lottery.
This amendment is about establishing consistency and equity, and recognising that financial education should not depend on where a child lives or which school they attend. The Centre for Social Justice, a think tank, has called on the Government, as a minimum, to place financial education on the national curriculum for primary schools within PSHE, and the APPG on Financial Education for Young People, of which I am a vice-chair, has recommended that it be embedded in the primary school curriculum.
We also cannot ignore the link between financial literacy and mental well-being. According to the Mental Health Foundation, money worries are the single biggest cause of stress and anxiety in the UK. The earlier we can equip children with the tools to understand and manage money, the better their long-term financial resilience and emotional health will be. I acknowledge that the national curriculum is under considerable pressure, but financial education cannot be seen as an optional extra. It is a vital life skill, essential for preparing our children to live fulfilling and stable lives in an increasingly complex financial world. That is why I believe this amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 441, which is tabled in my name. It is not the most elegant amendment that I have ever tabled, but it is designed to get the Government to set out their thinking on supporting those with special educational needs through the use of assistive technology.
I have a couple of obvious interests. The one I should declare is that I am chairman of Microlink PC, which makes adaptive technology for the workplace and education. More importantly—I show off how bad a dyslexic I am—I cannot function or deliver a letter without using it. Let us take English and somebody who is dyslexic. If you are bad enough, you will not achieve in English without having someone to dictate to unless you use assistive technology. You will fail at learning a language using the modern processes because the language-processing parts of your brain and your short-term memory do not work that way. You may have a choice of failing dramatically or just simply failing, but you are not going to achieve. Using assistive technology means that you can access that part of the curriculum, get through and possibly hand in work without having somebody else there. You have your independence.
I was trying to get the Government to set out their attitude towards this, which is a great way of addressing some of the problems of special educational needs. Get in early and get them away; they can maintain themselves and will be adaptive. If we could know about this in this part of the Bill, it would help us in the future. I hope that the Government are friendly to it.
There are all sorts of things attached to this. For instance, there are great things about not having mobile phones in school, but they are a very good platform on which to carry some of this technology. This may not be the only way forward—there may be other ways—but getting some idea of the Government’s thinking on this would probably help the forthcoming debates. It may not be a silver bullet, but it is certainly something that can help. I would be very grateful to hear what the Government’s attitude is.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 443 in my name. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for supporting it. The amendment would provide that an order or regulations made under or by virtue of any provision of the Bill that would amend primary legislation shall not apply to an academy school.
Academies’ proven success has been based on their freedom to depart from the national curriculum and to apply a curriculum tailored to their pupils’ needs. This Bill, however, is making a far-reaching change to the way that academies work, because the Government will, in future, be able to control the content and application of the national curriculum to academies. As I pointed out at Second Reading, this will be done not by primary legislation, as one would expect, but by secondary legislation that amends primary legislation. Yes, it is our old friend Henry VIII who lives on in these draconian powers, which raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, gave us an inspiring scene-setter for the next groups of amendments that we are discussing. It was a taster of why the decisions that we make on this Bill matter to so many pupils and young people. This is why I urge the Government not to throw the baby out with the bath-water and, in many instances, to think again. I have my Amendment 506A in this group, which simply says that, before the Bill is passed or enacted, the Government’s own curriculum review needs to be published and consulted on.
The legislation before us requires that all schools follow the national curriculum, yet there is no agreed national curriculum. Instead, the Government want to review that curriculum, which is fair enough, but that review will not even be published before we are asked to vote “blind”. It is simply wrong for a Bill to force schools to follow a particular curriculum when we have not been told what is in it: cart before horse and all that.
More broadly, we have spent a long, long time on this Bill so far. Outside of here, the Bill is informally known as the Schools Bill, yet we have managed not to discuss the whole reason for schools—to educate children into the world of knowledge—until this point. Educating children requires us to agree on what the content of that education consists of. The curriculum is not, or should not be, an afterthought. It is key: the raison d’être for schools as vehicles used by one generation to pass on to the next the canonical knowledge of humanity. When taught well, it is our greatest tool for social mobility. It is neither a fixed body of knowledge nor frozen in aspic. It changes over time. It is often contested and can be challenged, but it is a key component of educating the young.
The argument epitomised by this group of amendments asks whether every school needs to follow the same curriculum that every school must follow, yet we do not know what curriculum we are talking about, despite how important the curriculum is. The Government recognise that, which is why they set up the review. Taking three of the amendments we have here gives us some sort of meat on what the curriculum bone might be or what the arguments might be. One calls for financial education in primary schools, which we have already heard motivated. There is one to come on education for growing food and food preparation and another on education for voting.
You might say that those curriculum-related amendments are “hobby-horse” amendments. I am not saying that in an insulting way: they suggest the interests of the people putting them forward. They could all be creative and positive in a particular head’s hands with certain groups of pupils, depending on how they were used. If you get any group of teachers, parents, adults or indeed pupils together at any time and ask what should go into the curriculum, there are always very lively and creative discussions about priorities, what should matter, and so on and so forth.
The point I am making is that, even at the best of times, the curriculum is something that is a source of dispute. It can be liberating, transformative and inspiring, but it can be—and we all know this to be true—overly ideological, propagandist, politicised and used as a device for social engineering. As I said at Second Reading, I worry when Professor Becky Francis says that her curriculum review will look at what is taught through a “social justice lens”, with an emphasis on inclusivity. I am afraid I think of some of the more divisive aspects of identity politics and some of the arguments that have been had over critical race theory in schools, decolonisation and so on. It fills me with dread.
This Government have already had to pick up the pieces of curriculum mis-steps in relation to RSHE, as parents across the UK have become shocked to discover that their children were covering highly sexualised and age-inappropriate content and that some schools were affirming children in their chosen gender identities, a form of social transitioning now broadly discredited. I commend the Government for tackling that and taking it on: the point I am making is that all of that was inspired by centralised curriculum diktats. I therefore think we have to consider what the centralised curriculum diktat for all schools will be after the curriculum review.
Professor Francis has apparently said that the review will look at the alleged problem that the curriculum is too heavy. My problem is that we are now being asked to vote on legislation in a “curriculum lite” way, with the curriculum absent, despite a hugely significant mandate that all schools must follow this curriculum.
We are told that the curriculum review will address barriers to attainment, but so far the hints we have been given into the review look to be blaming exams and a curriculum that is overly academic for creating too much stress and anxiety for pupils—something that I completely disagree with. This hints at a new assessment regime that will be less stressful, and I am afraid that that fuels genuine concerns among educators that the curriculum review might amount to a recipe for lower academic standards. As we have seen in both Scotland and Wales, which have completely upended their curriculum in recent years, attainment has plummeted, sometimes below the OECD average.
I have not yet decided whether the Bill’s Clause 47 is totally wrong-headed and should be dropped, although I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, made a very good case that was worth considering. I am sold on the idea of a common entitlement for all children, and I am not opposed in principle to a national curriculum for all. But the Government should not be rigid and there should be more flexibility. Amendment 444 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would allow for that, so I am very interested in that.
However, none of this is the point of my amendment. This Bill says that all schools follow a national curriculum but will not tell us what is in it before we are being asked to rubber-stamp it. It reminds me of one FE student I taught. He was a bit of a cheeky chap. He missed a deadline for his GCSE and he said out loud in the class: “Can’t you just pass me, miss? I’ll show you the essay when I’ve written it later”. I thought that was a bit of a cheek, and I am afraid the same cheek is being displayed by the Government. I urge them to get their essay in on time, or at least to allow us to not have to vote until we have seen the essay.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for that. It has made me think, and I will come back to some of the points she made.
In the 1970s, we did not have a national curriculum and schools could teach whatever they liked. There was only one subject they had to teach, and that was RE. Along came the William Tyndale School in London, which decided that its curriculum was going to be progressively radical and its teaching methods very child-centric. Relationships at the school broke down completely between staff and children, and the Government of the day had to step in. Then came along a Mr Ken Clarke—the noble Lord, Lord Clarke—with his national curriculum, which said that we as a society have a duty to spell out what we expect our school children to learn. The national curriculum was born. But it is not a national curriculum, because it is not taught in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, and, as we know, it is not taught in over half of our schools, because they can choose what they want to teach.
These amendments make us question what we should teach. Do we think we should teach financial education in school? I think we should, but why should it be left to an individual school to decide that? Should we not, as a society, decide that? I firmly believe that water safety should be taught in schools, but it is not down to me; it is down to individual academies to make that decision. Should we insist that every primary school pupil should have swimming lessons and be able to swim 25 metres before they leave primary school? I think that is really important—I wonder how many other people think that is important. But it is not down to us; it is down to individual academies.
I welcome the curriculum review. I did not put down an amendment saying that water safety should be included because I am not carrying out the curriculum review, but the organisation I am a patron of has written and given evidence as to why that should be the case, as I think a number of people have for financial education. We wait to see what the review suggests.
I believe that one of the strengths of academies has been that they have built flexibility into the curriculum of their choice. I am just making the case—it will not be for me to decide—that there could be an opportunity for all schools to have some flexibility when deciding their curriculums.
I will end by discussing what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. She is right, but each individual academy that is deciding its own curriculum does not come to us and ask whether we agree with it. They just get on with it—they are just allowed to do it. Maybe the noble Baroness is right that there should be a political decision about what is taught in our national curriculum. That is a very interesting thought, and I will leave the Committee with it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502X, to which I have added my name and which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. This is what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just described as a hobby-horse. I suspect that, into that description, she would put the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, with which I could not agree more. What is education for if not to equip our children to deal with the world in the best possible way? Money certainly should be part of it.
My short amendment addresses food. Currently, 25% of five year-old kids are going into primary school overweight or obese, and the figure is between 40% and 45% for those coming out of primary school. We all have to eat and we all have to deal with the food system. A previous Government said many years ago that part of the education system would include children learning to cook five savoury dishes by the time they are 15. That barely happens in schools because they do not have kitchens and there is no requirement on them to do it, and therefore it falls by the wayside.
For 10 years, I ran the London Food Board. We set up a project called Capital Growth, which was linked to the Olympics. In that time, we created 2,500 community gardens in London, of which about 500 were in schools. They were in super weird places in schools—one was in a shopping trolley round the back of the sports hut. Nevertheless, people were growing potatoes, and the kids were amazed by it, because in one bang they got a sense of nature, wonder and growing, as well as a sense of patience, effort and doing something together. I went to one particularly inspirational school, where they had 43 basic first languages, and the headmaster explained how he used beans to teach people to do maths. He had nine beans, for example, and he said, “Make three rows”, and the children would say, “That’s three times three”. A whole range of things was possible in being able to swap cultures.
This could be described as a hobby-horse, in that I believe that this is very healthy and good for children, and we do not want our children being unwell—and yet that is what is happening. We are bringing up a generation of kids who are overweight; they do not do enough exercise, but, ultimately, they are eating terrible food. You can blame parents as much as you like, but at the moment parents are poor and healthier food is more expensive. Therefore, the school, I am afraid, has to be one of the places where children are taught about and encouraged to try different foods, to learn how to cook and to understand that the fuel they put in their bodies, just like the fuel you put in a car, is extremely important to their health outcomes. If they have lousy health outcomes, they will not get great jobs, they will not have a great life, they will have sick days and they will not be useful to this country or to themselves.
This is a fundamental element of life that needs to be incorporated into school curriculums, and not just as a hobby-horse. Obviously, the subject will differ, because it depends quite a bit on the passion of the teachers. However, most schools that I know that have done this have said that it has paid off massively. I would like to see whether the Minister can find some way to incorporate this kind of teaching into the schools of the future.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group and make the case that Clause 47 should not stand part of the Bill.
There are three main reasons for our objection to Clause 47. The first is the wider point, which we have discussed in our debates on other groups, about the value of autonomy at a school or trust level combined with clear accountability. This clause removes the autonomy that academies have had over the curriculum while disregarding the safeguards that exist via both the public exam system and the 2019 Ofsted inspection framework. Without this autonomy, we risk stifling the innovation and creativity that we have seen in recent years, where leading trusts have developed high-quality curricula and shared them freely with other schools. My noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park gave some fantastic examples, including among some of our wonderful free schools.
I am not suggesting that the Government want to see the stifling of creativity—I am sure that they want quite the reverse—but they need to explain how things will work in practice if this clause is to become law. I thank my noble friend Lord Sewell for his powerful intervention and for the extraordinary impact that he and others had on schools in Hackney; that is still being ably implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has tremendous powers over the curriculum, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. A future Secretary of State could use those powers to be much more prescriptive in terms of not just what needs to be in the main elements of the national curriculum—English, maths and science, in particular—but how those elements are taught, which the previously Government intentionally avoided doing. Indeed, we wanted to give all schools space outside the core subjects of the national curriculum so that they could exercise their discretion. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that I have definitely visited schools that are busy doing beekeeping and other things of which, I am sure, she would approve. So the Secretary of State has the power to expand the national curriculum.
Thirdly, as for much of this Bill, as other noble Lords have said, we just do not see that there is a problem that needs solving in this way. My noble friend Lady Spielman was clear in her time as Ofsted’s chief inspector that some academies narrowed the curriculum too much. This was addressed by the inspectorate under the previous framework, so the system already has the checks and balances that it needs to make sure that schools cannot game the system. The picture that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, painted—that of academies teaching whatever they wanted—is not an accurate one, given that, as I said earlier, they enter public exams and are all inspected by Ofsted.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that this clause is not needed and risks doing more harm than good. As we will debate in a later group, we would much rather recognise the strengths of maintained schools and give their leaders greater flexibility. Further, a number of schools simply do not have the facilities needed to deliver certain parts of the curriculum, such as design and technology. Can the Minister confirm that, if this clause becomes law, the department will fund the necessary investment to address these gaps?
I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 443 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He expertly set out the problems with the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. I know that time is short, so perhaps the Minister could write to the noble Lord—indeed, to all of your Lordships—setting out exactly the Government’s understanding of what these Henry VIII powers cover and how they could be used, not by the current Secretary of State but by a future Secretary of State, because I think that we need our legislation to protect us against all flavours of Secretary of State and government.
I am concerned that Amendment 506D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, does not reflect the reality that the Secretary of State can make all of these changes to the curriculum via regulation and can amend primary legislation.
The amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would try to carve out exemptions for high-performing schools. I absolutely support the spirit of them.
This debate comes at a time when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, we are awaiting the recommendations of the curriculum and assessment review. As can be seen from many of the amendments in this group, there is pressure to introduce more and more subjects into the curriculum. Apparently, in 2018, the organisation Parents and Teachers for Excellence counted 213 topics that were recommended in that year for inclusion in the curriculum. The question remains: if the curriculum is expanded, what has to come out?
Ministers in both Houses have sought to assure us that we do not need to worry about these changes, but the Minister will understand that the curriculum reforms led by the previous Government, which have contributed so significantly to our improvement in the global rankings in reading, maths and science, were hard won and hard fought. So, in addition to our principled objection to removing autonomy from school leaders rather than extending it to maintained schools, there is a deep-seated worry that the siren calls for a more progressive approach to the curriculum might gain traction despite the best efforts of the review team, which is ably led by Professor Becky Francis, for whom I have great respect.
I close not with the words of Ernest Bevin but by quoting, as other noble Lords have done in our debate on this group, from a blog written by Mark McCourt, the chair of the Advantage Schools Trust. He speaks for many of us in terms of why we all feel so anxious that the Government get this curriculum review right. He writes:
“To offer a demanding, powerful curriculum to every child is not elitist. It is egalitarian. It says to the child: you are worthy of this knowledge. You are capable of wrestling with complexity. You deserve access to the accumulated wisdom and accomplishments of those who came before you. This is your birthright and it is now yours to own and protect … We are not gatekeepers. We are door openers. And if we do not open those doors, especially for the children least likely to find them on their own, then we are complicit in keeping them shut”.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, an up-to-date, knowledge-rich curriculum is key to ensuring high and rising standards in schools, setting a clear minimum expectation of breadth for pupils. Parents have the right to expect that their child, regardless of their background, can access a consistent, high-quality core education that builds the knowledge and skills they need to thrive without the worry that some subjects may be dropped for ease.
The independent curriculum and assessment review is evaluating the existing national curriculum and statutory assessment system. Its final report will help us develop a rich, cutting-edge curriculum that secures a strong foundation in reading, writing and maths while providing breadth to give children a culturally rich education that prepares them for life, work and the future.
We want all children to benefit from that, which is why Clause 47 will require academies, which now teach more than half of all pupils, to teach that reformed curriculum alongside maintained schools. The point about the prevalence of academies is important for not just this debate but the debates that we will have on the coming groups. In this legislation, we are talking about the basic and appropriate requirements for a vast and growing majority of our schools. I have to say, a national curriculum that applies to a dwindling minority of schools is not a national curriculum.
This requirement provides a floor, but no ceiling. It will not force schools to teach in a certain way or prevent them innovating. Teachers will continue to have the flexibility to adapt to best meet the needs of their pupils.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive answer. I have heard much about good intentions and a great deal of hope being hung on the curriculum and assessment review, but not much acknowledgement of how a number of noble Lords have pointed out that this clause could backfire, especially without better controls and guards. My noble friend Lady Evans laid out particularly lucidly how academy freedoms have enriched and strengthened education. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, echoed my noble friend Lord Agnew’s concerns about the undetermined curriculum and reminded us about the essence and purposes of education and the risks of limiting the scrutiny of what is taught. We had a good case study from my noble friend Lord Sewell.
There are a couple of interesting points. Design and technology GCSE entries started dropping off in the late 1990s. Most of the decline has been the result of schools using their autonomy to structure timetables to teach less of it and to have fewer people taking those GCSEs. The safeguards were not there around design and technology for a very long period, so thinking about those controls and incentives really matters.
My fear remains that this clause may encourage lip service to the detail of the new curriculum, whatever it is. But if that comes at the expense of the intellectual energy and dynamism that have been generated in the school sector in recent years, it will drag English education inexorably backwards and, in a few years’ time, we might find ourselves languishing with Scotland and Wales in the international league tables, wondering what on earth we have done and why we ever thought that it was a good idea. Nevertheless, I understand where we are and that the curriculum and assessment review needs to report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Defence Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I place on record my support for the enormous amount of work that has clearly gone into the production of this industrial strategy. It is very evident that those at the Ministry of Defence have put their thinking caps on, done the hard work and constructed a plan based around defence’s current and future requirements. There is therefore much to be applauded. The six priority outcomes are absolutely aiming in the right direction and the commitment to strengthening the MoD’s links with SMEs is particularly welcome.
A strong industrial base is vital for the future of our Armed Forces and our defensive resilience as a whole. The need has never been more evident than today, when we have seen a Russian incursion into a NATO ally’s airspace and the largest attack in Ukraine by Russia to date. This escalation is deeply troubling and underlines the importance of swiftly putting Britain into war-fighting readiness.
This is a solid piece of work, but the caveat is this: the solid piece of work crumbles if the bricks are not cemented together. That cement is implementation at a wartime pace. What matters now is that the words on these pages are translated into missiles, drones, equipment and ships. Critical to this is procurement. The chilling reality is that procurement has essentially dried up. There have been promising words in the SDR, but we have yet to see the major procurement contracts that the MoD has promised.
Procurement is the lifeblood of a successful industrial strategy. For example, I ask the Minister: how will the Government ensure that the Typhoon factory in Warton remains open and thriving? We have heard that the Government will be opening up six new munitions factories, but they must have orders. When will they be placed?
I understand that the promised defence investment plan will detail much of the procurement endeavour, but when? The defence industry has been waiting with bated breath since July of last year, and industry must have greater certainty. I implore the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that the defence investment plan is published as soon as possible. In that connection, will the UK’s defence orders be joining a queue or with they be prioritised over orders for export?
When it comes to the new structures within the MoD, co-ordination of accountability to the Secretary of State is paramount. At the same time, duplication must be eradicated. The SDR and this strategy both mention the creation of a number of new bodies within the MoD: UK Defence Innovation, the Defence Industrial Joint Council, the office of defence exports, a defence office for small business growth and the national armaments director.
The strategic defence review identified a 10% reduction in Civil Service costs by 2030. Can the Minister clarify how, with the addition of these new offices, the MoD will achieve that staffing cost reduction? What existing structures will be merged or abolished, and who will be auditing progress? While I am on this topic, can the Minister update the House on the progress of appointing the national armaments director?
Page 30 of the industrial strategy details nine milestones to be reached by the end of this year. I do not believe any of these have as yet materialised, and the end of the year is fast approaching. Is the Minister confident that the 2025 timeline will be met?
In conclusion, I raise an issue that will come as no surprise to the Minister—budget. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State and I have raised concerns about the bundling together of intelligence spending within the defence budget. That means that, despite the Government’s claims of spending 2.6% of GDP on defence by 2027, the actual money available to the MoD for defence spending is 2.2% of GDP. I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but I want to make this clear: the Government may have increased defence spending, but this level of spend is simply not enough to deliver everything in the SDR and indeed in this industrial strategy.
The Russian incursion into Polish airspace yesterday and the triggering of Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty serve as a stark warning: complacency is not an option. The contents of this strategy, which, as I have said, these Benches fully support, cannot be a prayer for the future. Wartime pace means delivering from now on and, quite simply, there is no safe alternative.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who has such expertise in this area. We on these Benches also welcome the Government’s announcement of this new defence industrial strategy. We support the objectives of both boosting defence capability and increasing economic activity within our country. As someone who has worked in the sector—I no longer have an interest in it—I can say that, in the main, the jobs in the defence sector are high-quality jobs that pay well over the national average, so they are very worthwhile jobs for our citizens. More than that, they will contribute in large measure, we hope, to the resilience and security of our country.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, I will focus on procurement. I will not repeat the questions that she has already asked, although I am very interested in the answers. It is clear that an improved framework is needed and that, in the Government’s own words, waste, delay and complexity have prevailed. Big changes are therefore needed. We also support the aims of involving more SMEs and driving innovation. These are important, but how? Section 7 of the strategy sets out some details of process, but I would suggest that, as well as process, this all requires an entire change of culture across the sector, from the MoD to the primes and the SMEs. How will the Government fast-track the necessary culture changes that we need in order to move at pace?
The implementation of a UK offset regime is welcome and the sections in the strategy are encouraging. I appreciate that consultation is needed, but I also note that there are—we hope—contracts being let already before this regime is put in. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how any offsets will be gained from contracts that are let before then?
Similarly, a buy British focus is really good and very important. However, some contracts are being let at the moment that do the exact opposite. They are contracts that may call into question the future of established capacity in this country: capacity that, once lost, will not be regained. Can the Minister therefore ensure that these are reviewed as soon as possible to ensure that permanent damage is not being done before this strategy is implemented. I will be happy to discuss further details on that with the Minister.
In the Spring Statement, Rachel Reeves confirmed an extra £2.2 billion of UK military funding. This increase will be paid for by cuts in overseas aid, which the Minister knows we deplore. This strategy contains spending of £773 million on the Government’s estimate, but can the Minister confirm that this is not in fact new money, but money out of the pot that was announced in the spring by the Chancellor? At the time, the Chancellor also announced the new Defence Growth Board. Can the Minister say what role this will play, and indeed what role it has played in the preparation of this strategy? How does this fit with the new defence investors advisory group that is announced in the strategy?
I also seek information on the whereabouts of the Defence Growth Partnership, which has been in place for some time and shares many of the same aims, particularly around SMEs and innovation. What is its role? Is it still working and how does it contribute?
A key drag on the success of this strategy will be the lack of available skills. Part of this announcement includes skills investment, which is largely focused on five new defence technology colleges. This is also welcome, as is the emphasis on apprentices. However, what is the role of Skills England in all this, given that it was supposed to be part of the picture on the national skills programme.
Following events, it is very clear that things are moving very fast globally, and moving in the wrong direction. They underscore the vital importance of working alongside our European allies in securing the UK’s defence. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, we continue to play key roles in JEF, E3 and other groupings, while NATO is of course our foremost security defence relationship and always will be. However, more can be done to deepen the co-operation and integration with our European allies. They share security challenges and together we can build scale to rearm at pace. Will the Government, for example, now agree to seek the UK’s associate membership of the European Defence Agency?
While EU institutions have a more limited role in defence, the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—defence fund is being established by the EU Commission. Recognising the opportunity that SAFE presents, the Minister of State, Stephen Doughty, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Monday:
“It is a €150 billion instrument. It is very significant and could lead to significant opportunities for our defence industries”.
Can the Minister therefore update your Lordships’ House on the UK’s discussions with the Commission and the nation states on our participation in SAFE and tell us whether UK industry will be eligible to bid in the first round, which I believe is in November?
I have lots more queries, but I close by saying that this strategy is a first step and I absolutely concur with the noble Baroness that implementation is key to its success. We will happily support and work with the Government to help deliver the strategy and its objectives.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive comments about the strategy and the important questions he asked. I know it is from a position of support for our overall direction. I say the same to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie; I know that her questions are from a position of overall support for the strategy, but seek clarification on how we can improve it in the interests of our country and the nation’s Armed Forces. I very much appreciate the comments from both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Notwithstanding the points that have just been made, sometimes we, as a nation, do not praise some of the things that are happening. Yesterday I was at DSEI at the Excel centre, which I know the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be aware of. It was a phenomenal statement about UK industry and UK business—small, medium and large—and what a phenomenal statement about the projection of British power across the globe. Many noble Lords have told me they have been, or will go, to DSEI and they too have been overwhelmed by the number of foreign visitors, armed forces and businesses that are here.
So, yes, there are questions about our strategy and how we might do better, but I challenge anybody—and this is for the audience out there, rather than in here—to not say that we have an awful lot of which to be proud in this country when we look at DSEI. I know that is a view shared by everyone, and it is an important starting point.
The strategy seeks to do more in different ways. I will try to run through many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Yes, it is about trying to get to war-fighting readiness. We cannot have a situation, now or in the future, where we cannot do what we want to do because we cannot produce the equipment we need at the pace we need it. We must do better than we have done, and part of that is building our sovereign capability. Of course we will work with our international allies, but sovereign capability has been something that we have not given enough attention to over the past few decades. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the implementation plan. A whole chapter is dedicated to implementation. In each part, there are matrices about being held to account. The noble Baroness is right that on page 30 there are things that have yet to be implemented. I would point out that the strategy was published on Monday, but we are doing our best to get going.
On implementation, can I read directly from a note I was given, since I asked about this? An implementation team headed by a senior civil servant has been created. The Chancellor and the Defence Secretary—note to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—will hold the department to account via the defence growth board, and the Defence Industrial Joint Council will monitor delivery with our industry partners. The defence growth board will continue to exist to try to ensure, through the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, that all the various things that are outlined in the strategy are delivered.
In relation to what the noble Baroness said, we are working hard to try to protect jobs with respect to Typhoon. We have allocated £6 billion to munitions factories over the lifetime of the Parliament, with the six additional munitions sites, to try to ensure that we can have the munitions that we need. The defence investment plan will be this autumn.
The 10% reduction in the Civil Service headcount that the noble Baroness referred to is the aspiration. The new boards and bodies that are set up will see others disappear, others amalgamated, but all of it trying to give a greater focus. The noble Baroness went through some of the new bodies. They are not in addition to the existing bodies; they are going to be more directly focused to deliver the outcome we want and will subsume some of the existing bodies. We wait to see how that happens.
On the national armaments director, we have an interim director who will be in post for a period while we recruit the new director. I am not certain of the exact timetable for that. In terms of intelligence spending and defence spending, I think the amalgamation of that is not a smoke and mirrors; it is to try to reflect the reality of the new geopolitical context of our time, where we talk about homeland defence, cyber, and the importance of our security agencies working with our Armed Forces. The totality of the defence and security of our nation encapsulates all the above, and that is the totality of the spending. The noble Baroness and others can debate whether it is enough, but that is the concept behind joining those two together—to give us a sense of how much is being spent in the sphere. I know my noble friend Lord Beamish is behind us and will know the importance of some of the work that intelligence does to keep us safe, particularly from a homeland perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about fast-tracking cultural change. I totally agree with that. Let me give the noble Lord one example of that. Why does the urgent operational requirement operate only when there is a war or a crisis? Why can we not bring that same culture—I think the noble Baroness asked this when she was a Minister—that same process and that same attitude to the situation when it is not a crisis or a war? It is not about being flippant; it is not about disregarding proper financial process, but it is about saying: “Come on, let’s get these decisions made; let’s give some certainty; let’s give a drumbeat to orders”. If we can do that, we will do ourselves a favour. I am perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord and others, if he wishes, with my colleague. I will volunteer him for it with the Defence Procurement Minister, and we can discuss the point he made about offset.
Offset is a really interesting concept as we go forward—the idea of trying to have mutual benefits. If we buy abroad, how can we ensure through offset that we do not lose any benefit that may accrue or that a complementary benefit accrues to UK industry? I take the noble Lord’s point, which was on what happens before the offset system comes into effect, and we will consult on that. What happens if decisions are made now? I will take some advice on that and talk to the noble Lord and his friends.
The noble Lord also mentioned skills. Skills is a massive issue for our country. If a cultural change is needed anywhere, it is in trying to ensure that skills-based occupations, skills-based learning and skills-based opportunities are seen to be as valuable as some of the other opportunities. That the skills option is not seen in that way has bedevilled our country for decades. We are trying to deal with that through the defence technical colleges. We are going to work with Skills England and the devolved nations—he will have noticed that the devolved colleges are here.
On working with our European allies, of course we will work with them. We have the EU-UK security and defence partnership. I say to the noble Lord that we could not have entered SAFE without an EU-UK security partnership. The fact that we have that means that we can start to answer all the questions that the noble Lord has asked.
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their support; I hope that I have answered many of the questions that they asked. This is an exciting time. At the end of the day, the defence industry is on the front line with us. If we want to defend our democracy, we need to improve, extend and develop our industrial capability as well.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, I am absolutely delighted with the defence industrial strategy. Back in 2019, we debated the 70th anniversary of NATO. I was the only Peer in that debate who said that our defence expenditure should be 3% of GDP, rather than 2% as it then was. I am delighted to see that the strategy says that we are going to go up to 3.5%. Does the Minister agree that, sadly, with the world that we live in now, it will probably need to go up to 5% very soon?
The strategy is very good, but it does not talk about global strategy. I am co-chair of the India All-Party Parliamentary Group. Given our skills that the Minister spoke about, is there not an opportunity to partner with countries such as India, which has defence manufacturing as a priority, to our benefit as well?
The Minister spoke about skills. What about universities? As a former chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I have seen first-hand the power of business and universities working together. There is huge potential here for defence.
Finally, on defence procurement—which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, spoke about—should it not be compulsory for everyone in defence procurement to be qualified through the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, which is headquartered here in the UK?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will take that last point about procurement to my honourable friend Luke Pollard MP, who is the Minister in the other place. On defence spending, the debate continues on how much it should increase, but I am glad to see that the trajectory across Europe is towards increased spending. I will focus on the global strategy. Within the department, we are also working on a refreshed defence diplomacy strategy that we will see in due course.
On India specifically, I have been to India and spoken to officials about the relationship between our two countries and the trade that may take place. The noble Lord will know that the carrier strike group is visiting India on its way back. Again, that is part of the development of relationships between us and other nations. All that is focused. Whenever a Minister goes to another country—I am going to the Philippines next week—we put defence exports and business at the forefront of what we do. The carrier strike group had defence business activity all over it when it was in Tokyo Bay just a few days ago.
We are making progress, and I know that that progress is supported by everyone. Is there more to do? Yes, but there is an awful lot happening, particularly with countries such as India.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this strategy. It is the first proper defence strategy that we have had since the strategy produced in 2005 by the noble Lord, Lord Drayson. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie: the pace at which it will be delivered is important. I must say to my noble friend that my heart sank a little bit when he started reeling off the list of committees that are going to oversee this. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right: we need a cultural change. A possible idea would be to give each of the Minister’s civil servants a copy of the excellent book, Freedom’s Forge, by Arthur Herman, which talks about the rearmament of America in the last war. Can the Minister give assurance on the pace of delivery, and that regions such as the north-east, which, along with many others, has a proud history of supporting the UK’s Armed Forces, will be able not only to respond to it but to get investment from the MoD and suppliers?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I absolutely take my noble friend’s point on the need for pace. Even though I listed some committees, they will be the result of an amalgamation of certain bodies, so I hope that will be of some reassurance.
I thank my noble friend for his comments on the need for defence jobs and defence investment to be not only in the south and south-east but across the regions. He has been a brilliant champion of the north-east for a number of years in the other place. He has spoken to me about other industries, such as shipbuilding, with respect to the north-east and other areas of the country. As for the defence growth deals, we have seen two in England, in South Yorkshire and Plymouth, and then those in the nations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such growth deals will ensure that the defence investment taking place will be spread across the country and benefit the whole country.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this Statement, with its intent to create British jobs across the UK and make defence an engine for economic growth. I especially like—this will come as no surprise to the Minister—the reference to a union dividend. I want to probe the Minister a little on how SMEs across the UK—including in Northern Ireland, where we have a history of innovation and flexibility—can be practically helped to be part of the supply chain in those huge announcements, such as the one we saw last week with Norway. How can we practically help those companies to become part of the supply chain in those enormous deals? I congratulate the Government on that as well.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comment about the Type 26 success that our country had and the frigates that will be built on the Clyde. It is a massive success for our industry. I also thank her for her continued efforts with respect to small businesses, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the UK.
I hope the noble Baroness will notice that in the defence industrial strategy we tried hard to make sure that all the regions and the nations of the UK were properly represented. In one diagram on page 33, the noble Baroness will see the number of jobs in Northern Ireland: a total of 3,300 MOD-supported direct industry, civilian and military jobs. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that we need to make sure that it is not only Thales in Northern Ireland which is of benefit, important as that is, but the small and medium-sized businesses. I do not want to incur the wrath of my noble friend Lord Beamish, but we have set up a specific body to drive small business growth and made a commitment to ensure that billions of pounds-worth of investment in the industry is directed towards small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I would like to offer a dissenting opinion, but some noble Lords will be used to that. I strongly support industrial policy, but the coupling of defence and industrial strategy needs some thought. It suggests that industrial policy is driven by military needs, whereas in fact the case for industrial policy needs to be made apart from that. To a student of economic history, it is reminiscent of military Keynesianism, which was born in the Second World War, continued in the Cold War and dropped only with the end of the Cold War. There seems to be a pattern here.
Is the Minister entirely comfortable with basing the case for industrial policy on the need to rearm, as developed in the strategic defence review? I support industrial policy, but I would not want to hinge my whole argument on the need to rearm. That itself is something that needs to be discussed quite independently of the case for industrial policy.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.
My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.
I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests re the defence sector. As has been said, there is much to welcome in this document, but we need a full day debate on the subject. To try to rush everything in 40 minutes or so is, frankly, ridiculous and an insult to the importance of it.
There is a small number of specific questions I would like to put to the Minister. First, there is no mention in the document—I found this disappointing—of the need to reduce the bloated number of civil servants already employed by the Ministry of Defence. What plans has the Minister got to streamline defence procurement personnel? Secondly, the very important role of the new National Armaments Director is a massive job and probably will be one of the most important in the UK. What sort of salary level are we talking about to attract the top people available? Page 18 of the strategy document, on resilience and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, talks about an additional £1.5 billion in an “always on” pipeline for munitions. Could the Minister give me an indication of how that is arrived at? Finally, and this has not been touched on at all, have hugely important production sites in the UK, such as at Barrow, that are vital to our national defence. Is any thought being given to the protection of these key sites in the deployment of anti-missile systems and similar? There is nothing that I can see in the document about this and it is something we should begin to focus on.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. On his first point, about personnel, and his last point, about the security of sites, this is not the only defence document. There are defence documents that deal with personnel and what we might do about that. Similarly, there are reviews concerning the security of sites, partly because of Brize Norton but partly because we recognise there is a need for investment in that. He will see, over the next few months, various announcements made about the better protection of not only industrial sites but military bases—as he will with respect to personnel. That is the point I would make: not every single thing to do with defence is in the defence industrial strategy.
The National Armaments Director pillar exists only because of the defence reform we have introduced to create four pillars within the Ministry of Defence, of which the armaments director is one. The noble Lord is right about its importance. I do not know the exact figure—I can look it up and write to him—but it is the necessary salary. I remember looking at it and thinking it was a lot of money, but that is based on my idea of what a lot a money is. I thought it appropriate, let us put it that way.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will put that in writing for the noble Lord.
The “always on” pipeline is about trying to ensure that we have a situation where we can always, if we need to, step up our production much more quickly, rather than be in a situation where we have to wait two years before we can do this or that. An “always on” pipeline means, in essence, that we can get the equipment and munitions we need quickly.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this is a very welcome strategy; I give it my full support. I will give it even more support when its theory and proposals have been turned into practicalities. The problems and delays that we have experienced in replacing war stocks that have been passed to the Ukrainians are well known and underline the need for proper resupply and resilience. One of the issues is around the recently announced building of six new munitions factories. Is the Minister in a position yet to say where they will be and when they will come on stream? Also, who is going to meet the cost of setting them up?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The state will work with others to support the establishment of those munitions factories. I am not in a position at the moment to say to the noble and gallant Lord where those six places will be; that is still a matter for discussion. As far as I am aware, that has not been resolved yet, but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord. As of this evening, I believe that there is no news on exactly where those six places will be; if I am wrong, I will write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library to correct the record.
On the noble and gallant Lord’s more general point about munitions, he is right—this goes back to a point that a number of noble Lords have made—that we have to be in a situation where we can manufacture the equipment and munitions that we need. We must be in a position where, if we need to fight, we can fight because we have the sovereign industrial capability to do it. We are not in that situation at the moment. We are not in the place where we need to be, particularly given the current situation. The entire industrial strategy is about ensuring that the UK has the military industrial capability and capacity to do the things it needs and to fight the wars it might have to fight. I hope—I know that the noble and gallant Lord supports this—that we reach a situation where, by preparing for war, we deter war.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, one area where the UK has a unique specialism is demining. We are home to the world’s two largest demining organisations: the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. It is important that we continue to build on this world-leading expertise, as the unprecedented rise in global conflict means that the need for mine action has never been greater. Will the Minister consider what more His Majesty’s Government can do to uphold and strengthen the UK’s commitment to the global mine action programme?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I have met members of the Halo Trust; I am perfectly happy to meet them again if that would be of any help.
We are committed to demining and all of the various treaties on it. We are proud to be a part of that. We will continue to pursue the objectives of those treaties and of bodies such as the Halo Trust, which try to prevent mines being placed in the first place, as well as supporting demining; we are very supportive of all of that. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing up a subject that is slightly different to some of the things that we have been discussing but is still hugely important to both our country and various other countries around the world.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming the Statement, I want to press the Minister further on the role of SMEs in defence, innovation and supply chains. Will the Government ensure that the UK’s space economy, which is vital for secure communications and situational awareness, is embedded in defence planning and procurement?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course. That is a really important point and another aspect of the development of an industrial strategy. On small businesses, when we launched the defence industrial strategy on Monday, I deliberately went to Drone Evolution, a small company in Caerphilly, to highlight the importance of small businesses and the contribution that they make to the security of our country. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister suggests that campaigns to boycott and target defence firms, particularly on university campuses, are based on misunderstandings. Does he acknowledge that the campaigns occur in the context of British arms sales to dubious—and worse—regimes around the world? There is Israel, of course, under the dark shadow of the indescribably awful situation in Gaza. There is also, notably, Saudi Arabia, which is infamous for its internal human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia is on track this year to beat its own awful record of executions; Reprieve reports 241 to 5 August. Then there is the slaughter that it is linked to in Yemen, as well as the abuse of women’s human rights. Yet, in the first three months of the Labour Government, £1.65 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia were approved. Does the Minister agree that there will continue to be resistance while such sales occur?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me give a general answer to the variety of points made by the noble Baroness. Of course people can campaign against what they see as the arms trade and against what they see happening in various places across the world. Of course they can campaign about Israel and Saudi Arabia; they can campaign about a whole range of different things. What the document says, however, is that the defence industry is a perfectly legitimate way of doing business in the country.
People like me, and many others, take the view that preventing people being able to offer jobs and opportunities to people at universities or through various trade fairs—that is, the inability of people to do so without fear of intimidation—is not right, either. So it is a dual responsibility. I perfectly accept that, as long as the noble Baroness or anybody else conforms to the law and is non-violent, they can protest. As we saw, there are protesters at DSEI every year—although some went beyond. They are perfectly entitled to protest as long as they keep to the law. However, people are also perfectly entitled to go to DSEI, to purchase defence weapons, and to look at and discuss with other people what more might be done to ensure that we have the equipment we need. That is the only point I would make.
There is not a moral certainty on one side or the other here; that is the point that I want to make. I am sorry to go on about this. It is the same with respect to whether the Armed Forces can go into schools, to defence fairs and all of those things. Of course they should be able to do that. All of those things are really important. It is not a case of, “These people can protest but those can’t”; it is about people mutually respecting each other’s rights to pursue legitimate activity. I respect the noble Baroness’s right and that of others to protest against what I stand for and what I say, but I also recognise that I and many other people have a right to express our view as well.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
“(1) Where the proprietor of an Academy—(a) has breached a relevant duty, or(b) otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to remedy the breach or unreasonable action and secure the proper performance of the relevant duty.(2) Where the proprietor of an Academy has acted unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a relevant power, the proprietor must take such steps as are necessary to ensure the reasonable exercise of the relevant power. (2A) The proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsection (1) or (2) within such reasonable period as the circumstances require, having regard to—(a) the nature and seriousness of the breach;(b) the impact or likely impact on pupils' education or welfare;(c) the complexity of the remedial action required;(d) any other relevant circumstances.(2B) Where the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a relevant duty or otherwise has acted unreasonably with respect to the performance of a relevant duty the Secretary of State may serve notice on the proprietor of an Academy specifying—(a) the breach that has been identified;(b) the relevant duty or power in question;(c) the period within which the proprietor must remedy the breach.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent Clause 49 from granting the Secretary of State the power to (1) issue a direction to an Academy that is “likely” to have breached a relevant duty, and (2) prescribe exactly how any breach should be remedied. Instead, it seeks to give Academies discretion in how they remedy an actual breach of a relevant duty.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we return. I rise to speak to the amendments to Clause 49, including my intention that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is of course reasonable for the Secretary of State to direct academies to comply with their legal duties, but this clause goes much further than that; indeed, it cuts across the academy funding agreements that have served the sector well to date.
Once again, in a familiar pattern, we start with the question of why this clause is needed. Where is the evidence of non-performance of relevant duties on the part of academies or of unreasonable behaviour in relation to either their duties or their powers? Once again, it brings academies into line with local authority-maintained schools, despite the fact that there are already significant powers within both the funding agreements and the academy trust handbook to address any breaches. Once again, we find the Secretary of State at risk of micromanaging, rather than delegating responsibility to the trusts that run over half our schools. Once again, we have to ask ourselves: even if it is not the intention of this Secretary of State to interfere in minor matters in our schools, how might a future Secretary of State use these powers?
Finally, we realised when reading the policy notes that the penalty for non-compliance is, first, a notice to improve and then a termination warning notice—the identical powers that exist today—or, in the words of the then Minister for School Standards arguing in favour of this clause in committee in the other place,
“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 4/2/25; col. 383.]
But we end up with the same sledgehammer to crack what looks like quite a small nut.
You could argue that this clause at best creates another layer of bureaucracy and at worst is a micromanager’s charter. A close reading of the policy notes just leaves one asking “Why?” yet again. Not only is the Secretary of State taking powers to require a trust that is at risk of not complying with the new policy on the number of branded items of uniform to do so, but it also allows her to state how that should happen. Perhaps the Secretary of State will decide that the trust should remove a branded book bag, or maybe a tie, but I find it hard to see how this can be a good use of anyone’s time, let alone the Secretary of State’s. So I have a series of amendments that seek to bring back common sense to the Secretary of State’s interventions in these minor breaches, clarity of responsibility, and a reminder that the Secretary of State has considerable powers in the funding agreement, if needed.
My Amendment 444A on page 113 of the Bill aims to bring some proportionality to the power. It makes it clear that the proprietor must remedy any breach identified under subsections (1) or (2) within a reasonable period. In judging what is meant by a reasonable period, it refers to the nature and seriousness of the breach, the impact or likely impact on pupils’ education or welfare, the complexity of the remedial action required and any other relevant circumstances. My new subsection (2B) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can specify the time period within which a breach or unreasonable behaviour must be addressed, but not the method of doing so. Without this clarification, there is a real potential for the power to be used, ironically, in an unreasonable way.
My Amendment 444B removes the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene in the case of a likely breach. It is close to farcical to think of the time, resource and legal advice that would be taken to prepare the letter to a trust with an offending book bag or tie. The writers of “The Thick of It” might use this for a future episode.
Amendment 444C makes it clear that the powers within the funding agreement should be used to address breaches. Amendment 4445—sorry, we have not got into the thousands yet, although we might by the end of this Bill. Amendment 445 again ensures that any directions from the Secretary of State are limited to statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law where there is a breach or unreasonable behaviour in relation to a relevant duty.
My Amendment 445ZA has the same effect in relation to a situation where the proprietor has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably in relation to the performance of a relevant power. I apologise that the explanatory statement on that amendment was inaccurate and referred to a duty rather than a power.
Amendments 445ZC and 445ZD again seek to limit the power of the Secretary of State to a notice rather than a direction, so that the decision about how to address a breach rests with the proprietor. Surely this is a more practical approach than the one set out in the Bill, and clearly the issue needs to be rectified to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction.
We also believe it is important to have visibility on the way these new powers are used, so our Amendment 445ZB requires the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when the powers are used, explaining the issues arising and the actions taken. I appreciate that currently a notice to improve and termination warning notices are published by the department, but they are really only visible to those of us who read the daily emails from the DfE closely.
It will not surprise the noble Baroness to hear me say that on these Benches we think that Clause 49 should not stand part of the Bill. It is not needed, it is disproportionate and it is drafted in a way that does not align to the purpose set out in the policy notes. My amendments offer the Government some ways to improve that alignment but, honestly, I think it is best removed altogether.
At a time when the Prime Minister is rightly talking about the focus on delivery, surely clauses such as this, which absorb precious ministerial and official time for little impact, should be dropped so the department can focus on much more pressing issues, such as special education needs and disabilities. I hope the Minister will think again and I beg to move the amendment standing in my name in this group.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to amendments 444A to C, 445 and 445ZA to ZD, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, which seek to rein in the sweeping new powers currently set out in Clause 49 for the Secretary of State to intervene in academy operations. As my noble friend said, of course the Secretary of State should have the ability to ensure that academies comply with their statutory duties, but the powers currently included in Clause 49 are so broad that they will undermine trust in school leaders, significantly reduce academy autonomy and create a top-down bureaucracy with potentially over-restrictive government insight.
The clause as currently drafted, for instance, allows for the Secretary of State to give directions they consider appropriate to academies if they are deemed to have acted unreasonably or to be proposing to act unreasonably. To my mind, the effect appears to be that a trust could be punished for actions it has not yet taken, with a central direction initiated simply on the basis of speculation from a Secretary of State. I may have misunderstood but, if this is the case, it surely cannot be right.
In this context, the use of the word “unreasonably” is a further cause for concern. It is a vague and subjective standard, left undefined in Clause 49 as it stands, and it seems to open the door to overreach and potential political interference in individual schools and trusts from Whitehall. Without clear guardrails, it would enable Ministers to meddle in decisions that surely must properly belong to academy trustees and head teachers.
As my noble friend has just said in her opening remarks, the drafting of the clause runs the risk of creating a micromanager’s charter. And the problem does not end there. The powers granted under Clause 49 are not only overly broad; they are also unchecked and have no independent review or appeal mechanisms built in—something which Amendment 445A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would specifically address.
The group of amendments tabled by my noble friend, along with the amendment in the name of he noble Lord, Lord Knight, would bring some much-needed balance into Clause 49 by restoring proportionality and fairness into the process while maintaining the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that trusts do not breach their statutory duties, funding agreements or charity law. I hope the Minister will think again about the breadth of powers that the Government are proposing.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran. As she and my noble friend Lady Evans have pointed out, it is again not obvious why these powers are needed. The existing legislative framework and funding agreements provide ample levers to enforce and hold academy trusts accountable. If there is an implied shift, as there appears to be, away from accountability and towards direct control and management, it is important to remember what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, this afternoon: he laid out very clearly those underlying principles about high autonomy, balanced with strong accountability, and referred to the problems and weaknesses of some local authorities, which made it necessary and desirable to move to the model that served us well for many years. It would be deeply unfortunate if we end up with a central government that is attempting to manage the entire school system, rather along the lines of one of the weaker local authorities of 40 years ago.
I am worried about the strain that this will place on the Civil Service. I have concerns about people trying to read tea leaves and decide whether a breach is likely. As others have said, it feels like a system that is almost certain to create more contention and disagreement, and more time wasted on legal disputes and challenges to action, than it is to help children by resolving problems early. I support the set of amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not spoken in Committee and apologise for not being available to speak at Second Reading. Although I supported many of the arguments earlier today in respect of teachers’ qualifications, curriculums and so on, I chose to speak on this group of amendments because these clauses go to the essence of the academy and negate much of what an academy is about and what it wishes to do.
These amendments are particularly important. It is a bit disappointing that there are so few of us loyal troopers in the Chamber tonight to address this extremely important issue about the core of how academies are run.
I will disclose my interest in a second, but I was propelled to speak because I heard from one sponsor whom I know well that, if these clauses come through, he would want to hand “his academy”, as he calls it—the academy that he sponsors—back to the state. I cannot believe that this is what the Government want to achieve, but inclusion of Clause 49 may well lead to that. It would be a tragedy for our children’s education.
I am a huge admirer of academies. I was a trustee of the London Academy in Edgware and am currently a member of the Leigh Academies Trust in Kent. A member is a peculiar status within an academy, but that is what I am. I am not a governor or a trustee; along with the county council, I am a member.
The first, the London Academy in Edgware, was one of the original sponsored academies. It replaced a failing school in Edgware and was sponsored by the philanthropist Peter Shalson. In 2023, thanks in no small part to the excellent head, Paddy McGrath, it became one of the top 55 schools in the country. Importantly, over 50% of the students are eligible for the pupil premium and the admission policy prioritised students eligible for free school meals. This was a fantastic achievement. It has been obtained not least because of the flexibilities that it has been afforded and the freedoms which have been granted to it by its academy status.
As I mentioned, I am also a member, along with Kent County Council, of the Leigh Academies Trust. Under the leadership of Simon Beamish and Frank Green, it has grown from being one of the original CTCs, which some may remember—for full disclosure, it was originally sponsored in the 1980s by my uncle, Sir Geoffrey Leigh—to now being a MAT of over 30 schools. It is widely respected for its tremendous achievements.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am only repeating what was in print; I do not know why. Clearly, when one looks at the academies, one can see the tremendous success and improvement to education to the benefit of children in this country. Control of schools by central government clearly and empirically is not the answer, so I hope the Government will listen to my noble friend Lady Barran, whose dedication to this sector I salute, and agree with her amendments.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have to answer the charge that it is simply the academies that are improving standards in education, and maintained schools are not. Research in the area does not show that to be the case. Since 2017, I think, the Education Policy Institute has had a yearly look at the performance of academies and state schools. Last week I looked at the one for this year and, although I cannot remember the exact figures, the general conclusion was the same that it has been every year: there are some very good academy chains and there are some poor academy chains; there are some very good maintained schools, and some are doing less well. When you look at the results in the round, there is no premium, overall, for the academy sector.
The noble Lord may shake his head, but I will happily write to him with the research. I do not want to prolong things, but I just could not sit here and take that remark again. I thought we had discussed it over dinner; now I am saying it in the Committee so that it is on the record. It is simply untrue to say that all the improvement is in one sector of schools and that there is no improvement in maintained schools. That simply is not the case; the evidence and the research simply do not support that.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall briefly talk generally about all these amendments, which I and my party are not supporting. I ought to declare an interest as a governor of the King’s Academy, Liverpool. I was there at the beginning, when academies were started for a particular reason by the then Labour Government in very deprived communities and were then seized on by the coalition Government, including by David Laws from my party. We would sit through endless meetings, where there were always attacks on the maintained sector, about how wonderful the academies were. I never, during those early days—or even recently—heard the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is not in his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, who is not in his place, say, “This academy is doing a really good job but, guess what? This maintained school is doing a really good job”. I never heard any criticism of any other academy. People can nod their heads, but if you look at the record, that was the case.
I remember us pushing, for example, that we should inspect multi-academies. Oh no, we could not do that. I remember trying to suggest that we have an external look at the finances of multi-academy trusts—“Oh no, you can’t do that”. Thank goodness, we have moved on considerably since those days, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, because, during her time as Education Minister, she went to visit maintained schools, and her language and the language of her party has changed considerably. I very much appreciate that. If there is a breach—I am not sure how serious or how weak the breaches are—the Secretary of State should be looking at it and making the final decision. It should not be just left to the academy or the multi-academy trusts themselves.
One recalls that “Panorama” documentary about how proprietors of academies—it was a limited number, thank goodness—were ensuring that some of the work for their academies was going to companies that they owned and that were their own companies. So a repair or construction company would get the work from that academy. It would not go out for tender. There was a big scandal on “Panorama” about it. If that is wrong, action needs to be taken. I do not know what these breaches are, or how serious or wide they are, but it should not be just left to the academy to sort out. It should be sorted out by the Secretary of State and by her Minister in the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before I get into the detail of the clause and the amendments, I say to her that we believe that she may have been reading from an old version of the policy notes, because they were updated when they came to the House of Lords, and the policy notes are therefore correct in relation to the items that she was talking about. If she wants to check whether that is the case and drop me a line, I would be more than happy to follow that up if it is not the case.
This group covers the clause relating to ensuring effective oversight and accountability of academy trusts. Clause 49 introduces a power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to an academy trust where it is failing to comply with its legal duties or acting unreasonably when exercising these powers. Currently, when a trust is in breach of a legal duty, the Secretary of State can only issue a termination warning notice, which may be disproportionate for significant but isolated breaches. This measure will allow the Secretary of State to direct academy trusts to ensure that they meet their legal responsibilities and to address instances of unreasonable conduct where necessary.
It offers a clear and proportionate route to ensure compliance. If a trust does not respond to a direction, the Secretary of State may apply to the courts to ensure the matter is resolved, reflecting similar powers already in place for maintained schools. This will be used, where appropriate, to help implement key provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to curriculum, admissions and uniform, if necessary.
Most academy trusts perform well and meet their legal obligations. However, where they fall short, the Government must be able to act in a targeted and proportionate way. Clause 49 allows for early engagement, proportionate intervention and enforcement through the courts only when necessary.
Amendment 445ZB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, proposes a statutory requirement for an annual statement to Parliament on the use of this power. The Government are of course fully in favour of transparency but already publish directions and other notices on GOV.UK in a timely and detailed manner. I put on record the Government’s commitment to maintaining this approach to transparency. An annual report would duplicate this process and add no further value, while adding an unnecessary administrative burden.
Amendments 444A, 445ZC and 445ZD, all in the name of the noble Baroness, propose replacing the Secretary of State’s direction-making power with a notice procedure. These amendments replace the Government’s clear and authoritative direction-making power with a more convoluted system of self-policing duties and a notice procedure. In practice, it risks delaying intervention.
Effective oversight cannot rely on academy trusts policing themselves. The Secretary of State must retain the ability to act swiftly and decisively when serious concerns arise, particularly where trusts fail to meet their legal obligations or act unreasonably when exercising those duties. The notice procedure is very similar to the power as drafted, except it does not include the ability to issue a direction in cases of unreasonable exercise of a power. Therefore, the clause as drafted is more effective than the proposed notice procedure. When the Secretary of State writes to a trust before she decides to issue a direction, it will outline the breach, the rationale for intervention and the suggested actions to remedy the breach, and will seek representations.
Finally in this group, Amendments 445, 444B, 444C and 445ZA tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to limit the scope of Clause 49. These amendments propose to restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to issue directions to cases where a specific legal duty has been breached. In doing so, they would remove the ability to intervene where a trust acts, or proposes to act, unreasonably in the exercise of its powers, even if no explicit duty has been contravened. This would narrow the intended reach of the clause.
The Government’s intention is to ensure that a proportionate intervention is possible not only when there is a clear breach of duty but also when a trust’s conduct in the use of its powers is manifestly unreasonable. However, I have heard concerns raised by noble Lords about this clause—particularly the concerns that these amendments seek to address with regard to the broad scope of the clause. I am considering potential solutions that would preserve our ability to intervene effectively while respecting the autonomy of trusts, and I look forward to bringing a solution back on Report that addresses these concerns.
On that basis, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we have had two rays of sunshine in one day; we should celebrate, at this late hour. We now know how to wear the Minister down. We will be starting at 9 am next week. In all seriousness, as the Minister can hear, I am extremely grateful; it is not just tiredness. There are some issues with this clause, so I will not belabour those but will just welcome very much her closing remarks.
I thank my noble friends Lady Evans, Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their contributions. I offer, as my noble friend Lord Leigh did, my thanks to the Leigh Academies Trust for taking on part of what was a very troubled school on the Isle of Sheppey, which is a particularly challenging community. We wish the trust and the pupils every success.
Baroness Barran
“(a) in subsection (A1), at the end insert “unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available”;(b) after subsection (A1) insert—“(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement,(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school,(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided, and(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2),(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans, and(c) the outcomes of any plans.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the existing requirement to make an academy order unless the Secretary of State determines there is no suitable sponsor available.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am optimistic for a hat trick from the Minister. Clause 50 is one of the clauses that leave me most worried about the Bill because it risks directly damaging the education that children receive. Again, that is obviously not what Ministers intend, but it appears to ignore the impact on the school performance of sponsored academies—to be clear, not every single sponsored academy, but I know that the Minister will agree that, overall, the evidence shows a really important impact on the lives of children in those schools.
To be clear, I do not think that anyone on my Benches thinks that autonomy is a magic bullet to solve the problems of any school, whether or not it is failing. The key is how that autonomy is used. Some MATs have used their autonomy to focus on developing really great and deep expertise in turning around struggling schools, supporting staff and transforming outcomes for pupils. Others have focused on developing great curricula. There are lots of other examples; of course, there are also examples of professional generosity in the maintained sector, too.
There are now 2,796 sponsored academies in England —more than 23% of our secondary schools. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sewell earlier, trusts have led to extraordinary turnarounds in some of the most difficult schools in our country; I pay tribute to everyone involved in that critical work. However, Clause 50 changes that. No longer will a failing maintained school automatically join a strong MAT. In her Written Ministerial Statement, published yesterday, the Secretary of State wrote:
“Subject to the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, structural intervention through issuing of academy orders will continue to be the default approach for schools in special measures, because no child should be left in a school that does not have the capacity to improve”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/25; col. 29WS.]
I am genuinely confused by that because I do not feel that that is what the Bill says, as it removes the section in the Academies Act 2010 that facilitated this intervention. I hope that the Minister can explain that and reassure me.
The Government have argued that we should intervene earlier in schools that are struggling. Nobody would disagree with that; we were already doing that in the department when I was in office. Of course, if that works, it is the best outcome for children.
The other argument that the Government have put forward is that directive academy orders are too slow. I think that, if the Minister has time to dig into the detail, she will agree with me that the ones that are slow are really complicated. They may need significant financial help, which the department is struggling to find down the back of any education-shaped sofa; that might be in relation to capital or to revenue. There may be very complex governance issues, or—as in one case that I can remember, which was very slow—there may be crippling PFI contracts in place.
However, even that does not stop immediate help being put in. The Minister will be familiar with a number of cases where that has happened, often with trusts taking significant risk and commitment of resources without any guarantee that they will end up being the sponsor for the school. They do it because it is the right thing to do.
My Amendment 445B aims to address the Government’s concern about delays while still keeping the urgency that is necessary to address the weaknesses in a particular school. It says that, if
“no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement”.
This would bring about the clarity and transparency that will be crucial in retaining the confidence of parents, pupils and staff. I think that that aligns with the Secretary of State’s Statement yesterday but, if it does not, I hope that the Minister can explain where the gap is.
My Amendment 446A aims to address a problem that is likely to emerge as a result of the Government’s approach—namely, an increase in the number of judicial reviews of academy orders. Schools will want to understand why they are not being given more support or more time to turn around. However valid any individual case might be, the outcome will be a slowing down and reduction in the use of academy orders, leaving pupils in failing schools for longer.
My Amendment 446B aims to reintroduce the automatic academisation of maintained schools that have received from Ofsted a significant improvement judgment, or whatever the latest language is—however the department and the chief inspector judge that to be framed—and where the RISE teams believe that a school is “significantly underperforming”.
The Bill fails to address another problem: the schools that, under the previous Ofsted framework, were repeatedly graded as requiring improvement, some as many as seven times or more. None of us in this Committee would want our child to attend or work in a school that is so stuck in a rut of underperformance. I know that the decision to intervene in the so-called 2RI+ schools—to use the secret language of school intervention—was not universally welcomed, including by my noble friend Lady Spielman, and she and I debated this many times in her previous role. The aim was to send a strong signal about the priority we put on addressing underperformance in a timely and effective way. Sadly, the Secretary of State reversed this approach very early on in her tenure.
I ask the Minister to reconsider whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, particularly given the Secretary of State’s comments yesterday. Where is the evidence that the department’s proposed approach will be more effective? Children in failing schools need urgent action, as the Secretary of State herself has said. Sometimes the leadership of that school does not want to become part of a trust, but, ultimately, we need to be clear that the interest of the pupils must always come first. I beg to move the amendment in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 447 and 447ZB, which appear in my name. I must begin by apologising to the Committee and the Minister for failing to introduce my amendments in the group before the break. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for picking up the slack. My only explanation is that it has been a long 24 hours.
This Bill, as currently drafted, sits in an awkward position. On the long-term disastrous policy of academisation—too often forced academisation and rarely resisted successfully by local and school communities —the Bill makes half a U-turn. It ends the presumption that all new schools must be an academy and removes the duty to force schools into multi-academy trusts. As the National Education Union has said, this a welcome shift in policy. But this is not a full U-turn but a half U-turn. It leaves far too many schools stuck, pointed awkwardly at 90 degrees across the flow of history, like a vehicle on a traffic island with fast-moving lorries approaching from both directions.
The Bill does not provide the option for schools and their communities that are unhappy in their current situation to leave multi-academy trusts and join the local authority system or other groups that are better suited to their needs. Making that provision would provide the chance of escape and allow schools to get out of the iron grip of dangerous and failed ideology into the empowered position of local choice and decision-making—the kind of devolution that the Government say they are in favour of.
This is an area of policy that the Green Party, as on so many others, has been leading ever since it resisted from the start the disastrous push to free schools and academies that has fragmented our systems and seen enormous sums flowing into fat cat executive pay—something we may come to in the next group—and big supply profits hoovered up by multinational companies on the contractor bandwagon. These two amendments take two possible approaches to dealing with this and starting to untangle the mess.
Currently, schools in multi-academy trusts lack separate legal entities. Leaving it to the MAT board to decide which powers, if any, it chooses to delegate to each academy is a profoundly unequal relationship. Amendment 447 does not seek to directly prescribe how to get out of this undeniably complex situation; rather, it would create a new clause in the Bill directing the Secretary of State to set out, within 12 months of the Act passing, a report with proposals for converting academy chains, individual academies and free schools into maintained schools under local authority control.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on academy orders and to support Amendments 445B, 446 and 446A. My noble friend Lady Barran rightly said that I did not support the extension of academy orders to those schools that require improvement. I remember writing to the then Secretary of State to warn him that, among other things, it would place inspection under impossible pressure, and I think that my assessment was borne out.
This Government were quick to change their regulatory policies to remove their dependence on overall inspection judgments, so that those judgments could be removed. What we have seen over the past year is interesting, because it has shown that the sector also dislikes opaque and unpredictable processes, such as are now operating. With the loss of clarity, every intervention decision potentially becomes just the opening salvo in a long war of attrition.
I experienced quite a few of these sadly sometimes misguided parent campaigns to defend a school that was in fact in a desperate state and where the parents simply did not realise quite how bad it was. I know how debilitating some of these situations can be for all concerned and how drastically they can delay the kind of work and action that is needed to sort things out for children. Getting things sorted out for children typically also sorts things out for staff, making their jobs doable again.
We also now have years of experience of RISE teams and their predecessors. None has been found to be fully satisfactory. Each incarnation starts by recruiting school or MAT leaders but, over time, tends to morph into being a team of generalist officials who are not themselves equipped to provide support and, sometimes, struggle to identify the most appropriate alternative sources of help. I therefore support the proposals for improvement made by my noble friend and urge the Government to think hard about how to make sure that the consequences of failure—it is important that we can recognise failure—are clear, brisk and well implemented, with the maximum certainty and the minimum delay, limbo or uncertainty for all concerned.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
To get the current situation on the record, I looked around for evidence and found a quote that is helpful in our deliberations on this issue. The quote is:
“I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews”—
as has been mentioned—
“pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 902.]
I think that encapsulates the situation quite neatly. It is from Siobhain McDonagh, speaking on 8 January 2025. It can be found in column 902 of the relevant Hansard; I am providing the reference since my earlier remarks were challenged. So I will put them on the record as well: they came from the Spectator on 5 February. I believe that Siobhain McDonagh summarised the situation very fairly.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, what draws me to say something here is Amendment 446. It is an interesting idea that is inspired by academies, if you like. When you have a successful maintained school and it is close, you take over and you have a nice successful model that is still in the maintained sector.
We have been saying, in effect, that we accept that academies are part of the landscape. The fact is that they are not the only successful part of the landscape, because a maintained school must have done reasonably well to remain a maintained school, so it has been successful. If we are interested in success—and not running up a political flag, whatever colour we choose—it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Let us also remember that some of the worst schools now will be academies because they have been failing and they come down, and some of the most successful ones are the ones that jumped ship because they had nice catchment areas and all was going well, so they became independent. That is one of the realities. So I hope that, when we look at how we improve schools that go wrong, we have other options because, if we dig into the academy system, we can find serial failure even there.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I turn now to the amendments in group 10, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Although my noble friend is not here, I will respond to that amendment, given that it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.
We have heard much today about the positive impact that high-quality trusts have made on the educational outcomes of children. This Government acknowledge these achievements—in fact, I have done so on every occasion that I have had the opportunity to, as has my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh.
What we are concerned about is how we can ensure improvement. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was right when he said that what we need here is a range of appropriate methods in order to ensure the quickest possible improvement. That is what the Government are aiming to do here. While many academies and trusts have driven improvement throughout the system, academisation is not necessarily a panacea. In fact, even when sponsored academies are excluded, pupil attainment in multi-academy trusts and maintained schools is similar.
Furthermore, the process of converting these schools can in itself be slow. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to say that that is because, in many cases, it is very complex. Nevertheless, that may well be a period in which the improvement that we would all want to see has not been able to be pushed. Around 40% of maintained schools identified for conversion take over a year to become academies—time during which pupils continue to experience underperformance. It is for those reasons that Clause 50 has been included in the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about 40% of schools identified for “conversion”. I just wonder, for the sake of Hansard, whether she meant “sponsorship”. Conversion is a choice to become an academy, and if there is a delay, my experience is that that might be situated somewhere in Sanctuary Buildings’ capacity, whereas sponsorship is when a school has failed. Maybe she would like to clarify that in writing.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will clarify that in writing. I maintain the point, which the noble Baroness herself conceded, that often the conversion process, whatever prompted it in the first place, is not as speedy as we would want in order to drive improvement. Clause 50 has been included in the Bill so that the swiftest action can be taken to improve schools causing concerns.
For maintained schools that lack the capacity to improve—currently two-thirds of the total of schools that fail their Ofsted inspections—we intend, as has been highlighted during the debate today, to continue to issue academy orders, because they need a fresh start. Where Ofsted has determined that a school has the capacity to improve, from September 2026 we will rapidly deploy RISE teams—our school improvement support—as the first intervention rather than defaulting to structural change.
I will address the opposition from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. Clause 50 replaces the current duty on the Secretary of State to issue an academy order for any maintained school judged to be in a statutory category of concern by Ofsted with a discretionary power. This represents, as I have suggested, a deliberate and considered shift in our approach. It reflects the Government’s commitment to a more flexible and swift approach to school improvement. As Rebecca Boomer-Clark of Lift Schools recently put it, structures do not raise standards, people do. Strong schools working together in strong partnerships will continue to make the difference. Clause 50 gives effect to this shift. It enables a more responsive approach, one that prioritises timely support through RISE, while retaining the option of structural change if a school does not show significant improvement after 18 months of targeted support.
Amendment 446, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, seeks to introduce a statutory presumption of structural intervention, through either structural change or merger when a school is in special measures, but would give the Secretary of State discretion to act differently if that is their judgement. As I am sure my noble friend would recognise, Clause 50 already provides the Secretary of State with the wide-ranging flexibility to intervene as they think best, specifically on merging schools. The Secretary of State already has the power to require a maintained school to take steps to join a federation, which is similar in effect to a merger. We do not believe that my noble friend’s amendment is required.
Amendments 445B, 446A and 446B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to retain or reintroduce a statutory duty to issue academy orders, albeit with varying conditions or constraints. Each of these amendments would, in different ways, undermine the core purpose of Clause 50, which is to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to determine the most appropriate intervention for each school based on its unique circumstances.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am taking some encouragement from the Minister’s remarks. I wrote down and underlined that the Government have no immediate plans. That is interesting, because it is a statement of a possibility for the future. We all know how hard it is to get parliamentary time to get Bills through Parliament—the Government will certainly attest to that. I ask the Minister to consider future-proofing. Would it not be a good idea to provide the potential here, without the necessity to activate it, and set up some mechanism for the possibility of getting the kind of diversity that she says she is looking for?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I also said that the proposals run contrary to our policy. I would not want the noble Baroness to run away with anything that is unlikely to happen—so no.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very reassured by the Minister’s final remarks. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was in the Chamber when I tried to respond to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. It is important to set aside one’s ideology and look at the results, and at the people who are leading those results, in our schools all around the country and celebrate them
I thank my noble friends Lady Spielman and Lord Leigh for their reinforcement and support for my amendments. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lady Spielman that we need a system with clarity which, in her words, is brisk, well-implemented and with minimum delay. That is important and, I think, what the Minister hopes will happen.
I appreciate the clarity that the Minister brought in relation to Ofsted judgments which say that the school in question lacks the capacity to improve. It will be interesting to hear my noble friend Lady Spielman’s reflections on that and whether that puts great pressure on Ofsted inspectors to avoid that judgment. But that is for another day and another time.
The Minister makes a fair point about the 2RI+ power and the fact that those decisions—which I have to say I feel quite proud of—were not judicially reviewed. The context is perhaps a little different, but the Minister has brought helpful clarity to the Government’s intention. Until we see the proof of the pudding, we will remain concerned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bousted
“1A In section 120(1)(a), after “teachers”, insert—“(aa) academy schools Chief Executive Officers’ pay,””
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I am aware that it is very late at night indeed. I have waited a long time to bring the amendment but, anyhow, it is not a long speech. The amendment is very simple. It makes one addition to the Bill, and that is to bring chief executive officer pay, usually of a multi-academy trust, but it might be of a single academy trust, under the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body. This is a necessary step to advance the good use of public money in the provision of education for the nation’s children.
As we know, this is, or at least it was, a cross-party concern. My noble friend Lord Agnew is not here, but when he served as Academies Minister in the last Government, he was highly concerned about the apparently exponential rise in the pay of multi-academy trust CEOs. Indeed, so grave was his concern that, on two occasions, I think, he wrote to the chair of trustees of MATs that were awarding what he considered to be excessive pay rises to their CEOs and called them into his office to meet them and hear the justification for the awards. If he were here, I would have assured my noble friend that I would have very much liked to be a fly on the wall at those meetings.
In 2018, my noble friend wrote a letter to the chairs of academy trusts in England saying:
“I want to emphasise the priority that I attach to the responsibility you and your boards have to ensure that your executive teams manage their budgets effectively and deliver the best value for money. This is particularly important when looking at the pay of your senior leadership teams”.
He added that the then chief executive of the Education Skills and Funding Agency had written to a number of single academy trusts where remuneration for a trust employee was over £150,000 and he would be writing to all MATs where this applied too. He added:
“I believe that not all boards are being rigorous enough on this issue. CEO and senior pay should reflect the improvements they make to schools’ performance and how efficiently they run their trusts. I would not expect the pay of a CEO or other non-teaching staff to increase faster than the pay award for teachers”.
In 2019, my noble friend Lord Agnew wrote again to the chairs of boards of trusts in a letter headed “Excessive High Pay to Employees”, requiring information from those trusts on the salaries and bonuses paid to individuals in those trusts earning more than £100,000. This might not happen too often, so it is perhaps a little noteworthy that I entirely agree with my noble friend. I entirely agree that the pay of CEOs and other non-teaching staff should not increase faster than the pay award for teachers. But my amendment is more conservative than that, with a small C. It would simply put the pay of MAT CEOs and single academy trust CEOs within the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body, as is teacher and school leader pay.
I gave evidence to the STRB for over 20 years, both as general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the joint general secretary of the National Education Union. The process of giving evidence is rigorous. STRB witnesses are required to submit detailed written evidence to the board on the pay awards that they feel are necessary and just for teachers and leaders. The evidence takes into account the relative pay rises of other workers in the public and private sectors, the state of recruitment and retention in the teaching profession and a host of other wage economy evidence. The STRB then holds in-person oral sessions where witnesses are required to elaborate and build on their written submissions. The review body then considers all the evidence it has been given, including evidence from the Department for Education, and makes a recommendation to the Government which the Government must then decide whether or not to accept. All this amendment would do is put in place the same rigorous arrangements for CEOs of single and multi-academy trusts.
This is a necessary step because there has been an inflationary spiral in CEO pay. Schools Week, the trade newspaper, conducts an annual executive pay investigation, which this year included 1,800 trusts. What this analysis found was that the gap between the CEO and other staff in multi-academy trusts is widening the pay gap. Sixty-four CEOs earned more than £200,000 a year. Five multi-academy trusts registered increases of over 20% or more in CEO pay. Now these pay rises may be justified. The problem is that the taxpayer does not know the reasoning behind them and we do not have an agreed definition of what the job description of a CEO is. How is it different from a head teacher? What is the job weight and how is it weighed by the boards, by the governing bodies?
The danger in a lack of appropriate regulation of CEO pay was well articulated by Sam Henson, deputy CEO of the National Governance Association, who remarked that salary benchmarking for CEOs was
“in some cases, leading to inflationary spirals”.
He added that the benchmarking exercises
“don’t come with an accompanying narrative on how this deals with the massive pressures the sector is under, namely money being … in short supply, ongoing recruitment and retention challenges, and insufficient accountability”
for this role.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 448A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I must declare an interest in that I have been a member of teaching unions, but somewhere along the line, I let that slip. I confess that as this Bill goes through, I am learning a lot about education. I did not realise that as a non-union member, I was not naturally entitled to legal representation if a complaint was made against me. That does not sound entirely legal to me. I believe that unions do a good job and are a necessary part of teaching for many people, but being part of a union should not determine whether a teacher feels safe and supported.
Amendment 448A promises important improvements to working conditions within the teaching profession. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is about to point out, one in four teachers is subject to an allegation from a student or parent at some point in their career, and, as a result, many are subject to disciplinary investigations and hearings. This puts pressure on teachers in what is already a highly pressurised job. The process of investigation can severely impact a teacher’s mental health or their ability to fulfil their job. This issue demands careful attention to prevent a worsening of the recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers need to be able to raise their own concerns, grievances or requests for flexible working arrangements. Many schools already allow trained companions, but that is exactly the problem: it depends on the good will of individual heads. Without legal clarity, the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not be dependent on union membership.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, would like to speak in support of Amendment 448A, which I believe represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness within the teaching profession. Just as there are many reasons why an individual may choose not to join a political party, there are likewise numerous legitimate reasons why a teacher may opt not to join a union. Although I fully support the right of teachers to join trade unions, it is deeply concerning that many feel they must do so merely to secure access to appropriate representation when facing formal proceedings. No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords, yet evidence from representative surveys indicates that many teachers do precisely that, joining primarily for legal support in the face of allegations.
At its core, this amendment is about one fundamental principle: teachers’ access to support in formal disciplinary or grievance proceedings should not be contingent on their politic beliefs or union membership status. At this juncture, I should declare an interest, in that my wife, who is the chair of a board of governors for a foundation school, is currently in the process of a disciplinary procedure.
The issue before us is the basic right to be accompanied. At present, this right is extended only to union members or those who can identify a suitable colleague. But what of the many teachers—an increasing number—who, for entirely valid reasons, can access neither? These are not theoretical concerns. There are teachers who prefer independent forms of support; teachers who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive or personal information with colleagues; and teachers who, as is their right, choose not to participate in collective structures. Tens of thousands of such professionals exist in our education system. They are not exempt from the formal process, yet they are expected to face them alone. This is a question of fairness.
We already recognise this principle in other sectors. Under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework, doctors and dentists are entitled to be accompanied by representatives from defence organisations such as the MDU or the MPS. This has not undermined the role of unions in healthcare; rather, it has ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at crucial moments. It is only right that teachers, who work to and conduct similar levels of public and institutional scrutiny, should be afforded the same basic protection.
We debated a similar issue during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and I anticipate that the same concern may be raised again today—namely, that widening accompaniment rights risk “lawyering up” disciplinary procedures. With respect, that is a mischaracterisation of both the amendment and the current legal framework. The law already imposes clear limitations on the role of a companion in such hearings, and this amendment would not alter those parameters. It would not introduce legal representation into the room.
Indeed, it is worth noting that, under the current law, a teacher who is a union member may be accompanied by a lawyer, provided that individual holds union officer status, without the need for employer approval. Yet a teacher outside a union has no statutory right even to a trained non-legal companion. That is the imbalance this amendment seeks to address.
As unions themselves often emphasise, far from escalating matters, the presence of a trained companion often helps to prevent conflict, reduce procedural errors and resolve issues before they spiral. This is about fairness, not formality; it is also about extending protection, not creating confrontation. It is not about undermining unions; it is about extending a basic protection to all teachers regardless of their affiliations.
This is a modest and reasonable proposal that would not diminish the role of unions. Rather, it acknowledges that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. No teacher should be disadvantaged for choosing an alternative form of professional support. If we believe in individual liberty and procedural fairness, we should not turn a blind eye to a group of professionals facing complex, often career-defining moments, unsupported.
This amendment would impose no additional financial burden on schools. On the contrary, it is likely to result in savings in both time and resources that would otherwise be spent on facilitating teachers to bring colleagues to hearings.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 448A in my name. I do so as a former membership secretary of the NUT and a former member of the National Association of Head Teachers. I could not have said it any better than the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Ashcombe. This is not an anti-union amendment, far from it. It is an equal opportunities issue, where the teacher has the right to choose who they want to accompany them if they have to face a disciplinary hearing.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, because we had much the same debate in the Employment Rights Bill. In the Employment Rights Bill debate on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, explained the Government’s position. I made the point that, in my experience, when people—particularly young people—are in disciplinary procedures and meetings, their preferred choice of person to accompany them is invariably a parent, for obvious reasons. I tried to table an amendment to suggest that relatives, whether or not they are professionally qualified, should be allowed to accompany people in such circumstances. That got lost in the heat of the Employment Rights Bill, but I invite the Minister to consider whether a relative might be included as a professionally qualified person for this purpose.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 448 in my name and to support Amendment 448A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Hampton, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 448 would extend to maintained schools the freedoms that academies enjoy in relation to their staff’s pay and conditions. I cannot see a strong reason not to do this. Again, this is about trusting school leaders to make the right judgments for their team. My amendment is clear that the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document should act as a floor and not a ceiling in relation to teacher pay. I acknowledge and thank the Government for the important amendment they tabled in the other place that established this final point in relation to academies.
Amendment 448A has already been ably and nobly spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. As other noble Lords have said, the amendment aims at the fundamental fairness that all teachers have the right to be accompanied by a certified companion. Teachers who are members of a trade union should feel well served by the representation that they pay for, and that is something that we welcome. It is also fair and reasonable to say that there would be some teachers who would choose not to join a union for a whole range of reasons, including disagreeing with strike action or a union’s political objectives. The Minister will be very familiar with some of the recent demands from unions—we heard some of them tonight, including abolishing Ofsted and returning academies to local authority control. It is fair to say that some people could reasonably disagree with these. This amendment seeks to ensure that teachers who, for whatever reason, are not union members can be accompanied by a trained and certified professional companion.
The amendment would tidy up the existing situation where trained companions from organisations such as Edapt are routinely admitted to hearings in schools but lack a legal right to do so, and on occasion are refused by employers. This amendment would provide a mechanism to regularise the good practice that is already seen in the sector and ensure that it is spread equally.
The amendment has another spin-off benefit. The Minister will be aware—I think my noble friend Lord Nash talked about this—that schools are seeing an increasing number of complaints being generated by AI. Complaints might be generated using an LLM, but they cannot be resolved in the same way. It is therefore important to ensure that workplace hearings are efficient and effective and keep pace with that very regrettable trend.
I cannot support Amendment 447A—I see that the Minister is smiling in surprise. In the good tradition set by my noble friend Lord Agnew, I also spent some time writing to chairs about CEO and senior leadership team pay. I disagree with the Minister that this should be resolved through the STRB.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we turn now to the amendments in the final group, group 11, which relate to teacher pay and conditions. Clause 51 supports our commitment towards creating a statutory pay floor, guaranteeing that all teachers in scope will not be offered pay below a minimum level, giving all schools the flexibility to attract and retain the teachers they need.
I turn to Amendment 447A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bousted; I am very glad that we got to this group, so that my noble friend was able to propose her amendment. She has been a stolid supporter of this debate, not only today but during Committee, and I recognise that and thank her. Her amendment proposes extending the remit of the School Teachers’ Review Body to include academy trust chief executive officers. We very much recognise and welcome my noble friend’s expertise in education and note that she raises an extremely important point: we must ensure that public money drives the best outcomes for children. We set very clear expectations for robust processes and justifiable salaries when recruiting executives. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and in fact from my noble friend, about the actions of the noble Lord, Lord Agnew; I suspect that maintaining that focus on value for money is an important part of this debate for all noble Lords.
Furthermore, for transparency and accountability, the department also engages with trusts where executive pay is deemed an outlier, publishing the names on GOV.UK. I have not, due to my policy responsibilities, signed any letters or had any meetings without coffee, as it appears have rightly happened, but, as the noble Baroness rightly argues for, I have no doubt that the department is maintaining the pressure to ensure that public money is effectively spent and reflects improvements and standards for children rather than the interests of the leadership of trusts.
I recognise that drive for action. I reassure my noble friend that the department works with trusts that do not demonstrate value for money or improved pupil outcomes. We will monitor our approach, ensuring proportionality and impact when keeping that under review.
Amendment 448, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the statutory ceiling on teacher pay and allow maintained schools to depart from the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment, which is in the spirit of what our clauses attempt to achieve, but there is a significant difference between our clause and what the noble Baroness is proposing.
We both agree on the importance of removing the pay ceiling, but it does not need to be in the Bill to achieve that. There is a well-respected process through the Education Act 2002 which already provides for the Secretary of State to determine pay levels through secondary legislation. That is precisely what we intend to do following Royal Assent and a statutory consultation process, through the usual schoolteachers’ review body process. The Bill and our subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will achieve the aim of creating a pay floor with no ceiling and increasing innovation for all schools.
Amendment 448A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would expand teachers’ rights to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance meetings by representatives of professional bodies which are not trade unions. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord and others in raising this matter. As we have heard, noble Lords are aware that the Department for Business and Trade is responsible for the policy in this area.
Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 already provides adequate protections in respect of the right to accompaniment for all workers, including teachers. I am aware of the outcome of the vote on Report of the Employment Rights Bill on a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that the Department for Business and Trade will set out its latest position on that issue in due course.
With regard to teachers specifically, we believe that creating a statutory right for teachers separate to the process that I have just outlined covering all workers could raise concerns under the European Convention on Human Rights, as it would treat them more favourably than other workers without clear justification. We therefore have no plans to amend the position for teachers.
These clauses are about ensuring that the Secretary of State has the right tools to uphold standards and protect pupils, while also supporting the teaching profession through fair and consistent pay arrangements. I hope that given the assurances and additional information that I have provided, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.