Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
I am proud that this Government are investing £1 million into the connect fund to strengthen collaboration between communities across the UK. Mr Speaker, I know that as a dedicated supporter of our veterans you will be pleased to hear that I recently visited Castle Community Trust in Belfast, which through this funding is bringing together veterans in Belfast and Shrewsbury to overcome social isolation. Whatever part of the United Kingdom people are in, they have our support to tackle shared challenges.
Mr Quigley
As an MP who represents an island that has a significant veteran community, with one in 10 homes in Isle of Wight West home to a veteran, I know how crucial and effective community relations funding is. Will the Minister commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to explore adapting successful Northern Ireland-GB initiatives such as the excellent connect funding, so that similar tailored support can be delivered on the Isle of Wight to ensure that our veterans receive the recognition and assistance that they deserve?
Matthew Patrick
I am happy to speak to colleagues about the success of the connect fund and how it works. My hon. Friend should know that applications are open to anyone across the United Kingdom, provided that they are working with a group in Northern Ireland. I would be delighted to see applications from his constituents if they wish to do that.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Collaboration between groups across the Irish sea is very welcome. Those relationships will always be cherished. Unfortunately, Brexit really impacted the ability of those groups to serve and support people, and that was a consequence of the failure to plan for the constitutional change of Brexit. Regardless of the Minister’s own views on Northern Ireland’s future, that issue is the subject of increased engagement and debate. The SDLP acknowledges that we are not at a tipping point towards a referendum, but the Secretary of State was wrong to say that there is no appetite for one. Does the Minister acknowledge that it is perfectly possible to work to improve the region in the here and now while also planning for the constitutional future that is a new Ireland, as the SDLP is doing?
Matthew Patrick
The Secretary of State has been clear that currently, there is no evidence that there is a majority in favour of constitutional change. Of course, we defend the principle of consent and the right of the people in Northern Ireland to determine their constitutional future. It is totally legitimate for people to advocate for the future they want to see.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that reported attempts to extend European Parliament observer status to politicians in Northern Ireland are bound to inflame tensions between communities in Northern Ireland and between communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will he say that the UK Government will have absolutely nothing to do with this attempt to break up our United Kingdom?
Matthew Patrick
I have seen no such proposals. We have agreements in place with the European Union to ensure that there is engagement with Northern Ireland on any matters that might impact it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Minister will be enjoying his opportunity to travel across Northern Ireland and see some of the wonderful groups we have. He knows the strength of this United Kingdom, and he knows that increasing the bonds across Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England is crucial. He should know that the last Government—supported by his Labour colleagues—agreed that through the East-West Council there should be educational collaboration, so that our young people can mix with one another and draw upon each other’s strengths. Could he indicate how many times he believes the East-West Council has progressed that matter and what plans he has to strengthen those bonds?
Matthew Patrick
I look forward to the next meeting of the East-West Council. The right hon. Member will know that I met Minister Givan to discuss education matters and how we can ensure that students in Northern Ireland have the best education possible. I agree with the right hon. Member about the importance of shared bonds, and I hope we can progress those further.
Gavin Robinson
In drawing upon the bonds of our country, the Minister will know while Northern Ireland has a greater than average growth rate compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, we still have a productivity gap. Behind that is the fact that our growth is masked by an over-reliance on our public sector. The Minister’s colleagues agreed in the last Parliament—as I am sure he does now—with cross-fertilisation between the Northern Ireland civil service and the home civil service. What plans does he have to increase our ability to draw on expertise and encourage secondments across this United Kingdom?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the right hon. Member for the opportunity to champion the growth taking place in Northern Ireland, with exciting work in the creative industries and the tech sector. On the opportunities for secondments and shared learning, I made the offer to the Executive Ministers I met last month that where we can share best practice, knowledge and learning, we should do so. I am happy to take forward other suggestions that the right hon. Member may have.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I have met a range of businesses and representative bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, to discuss supply chains and how the Government could improve guidance and support on the Windsor framework. I will continue to take that feedback into account as we respond to recommendations made by Lord Murphy in his report.
Mr Campbell
Will the Secretary of State step up his efforts to ensure that there is no disadvantage to companies trading within Northern Ireland? Further to that, he will be aware of the potential threat posed by Chinese-built buses. Given that excellent UK-made zero emission buses are built in Northern Ireland at Wrightbus, will he liaise with the Department for Transport and mayors in Great Britain to ensure that purchases of those buses, which have no security risk, are seen as infinitely preferable to purchasing those made in China?
Hilary Benn
I join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the wonderful zero emission buses being produced at Wrightbus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting two or three times. They are brilliant, one sees them on the streets in the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a very good reason to buy UK-made buses from Northern Ireland so that we can see more people travelling on them. That is an option that is open to local authorities.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Lord Murphy on his review of the Windsor framework, which has made important recommendations that could support GB businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his considerations on the Murphy review?
Hilary Benn
I continue to give careful consideration to what Lord Murphy has said, along with what has been said by the independent monitoring panel and the FSB and other recommendations. There is a lot of similarity in the points that have been made about steps the Government could take to provide better, easier-to-access guidance for businesses to enable them to move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We will set that all out when we formally respond to Lord Murphy’s review, which we must do early next year.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
Hilary Benn
There are now 15,000 businesses that have registered under the UK internal market scheme, and 97% of lorries moving from GB to Northern Ireland do not face any in-person checks at all. The goods are flowing and moving. It is, in the end, for businesses to decide to whom they sell and from where they purchase, but the Northern Ireland economy is doing extremely well, which shows that the problems—and there are some—are not affecting its overall strength.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Northern Ireland’s creative industries are thriving and are an important source of growth, and I have discussed that topic with Northern Ireland Executive Ministers. Whether it is “Derry Girls”, “Game of Thrones”, “Trespasses”, “Blue Lights” or “Line of Duty”, which has just been renewed and will be filmed in Belfast, producers choose Northern Ireland for its world-class talent and studios. To coin a phrase, it is a sector that is sucking diesel.
Dr Tidball
UK Disability History Month begins tomorrow and I am delighted that the Creative Diversity Network now reports the doubling of the representation of disabled people on and off screen since 2018 to 9% across the UK. One such example is the phenomenal BBC film “An Irish Goodbye”, which stars Down’s syndrome ambassador James Martin and was filmed in Northern Ireland. What is the Minister doing to ensure a further drive to again double the presence of disability on and off screen?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend speaks with enormous experience and I know that she wrote the impactful report, “Employing the change-makers”. I agree that expanding opportunities for disabled people to take part in the creative industries is important. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport often says, talent exists everywhere but opportunity does not. That is why I am pleased that the creative industries new entrants programme, delivered in partnership between Northern Ireland Screen, the BBC and the Northern Ireland Executive, is working to broaden access for disabled actors.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank him for his energy and interest in Northern Ireland. We hope to have him in Strangford shortly for a visit. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an increase in economic value of 19% in the Northern Ireland film sector, and there is the potential for much more. I live on the beautiful Ards peninsula—it is not beautiful because I live there; it was beautiful before I ever lived there—and in my constituency of Strangford there is the potential for much more. How do the Northern Ireland Office and the Minister intend to work further with Northern Ireland Screen to promote the high quality and the lower costs in Northern Ireland? We have lots to offer—let’s take advantage of it.
Matthew Patrick
If you’re directing it, Mr Speaker! I look forward to my visit to Strangford—I do not see enough of the hon. Member in this House. The creative industries in Northern Ireland are booming, as he says, and they are backed all the way by this Government. We have a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year plan to back our strengths and unlock potential, and the Government have committed to increasing investment in the creative industries to £31 billion by 2035.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by all the major Northern Ireland political parties, as well as by our domestic courts, by victims and survivors and by many veterans, who saw it as an affront to the rule of law that they sought to protect. The Government took a significant step in fulfilling our commitment to repeal and replace the Act by introducing the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday.
Sam Rushworth
I am proud to represent a community with a lot of veterans, many of whom served in Northern Ireland. Who is the Secretary of State engaging with to ensure that the protections for our veterans in the legislation are as strong and effective as possible?
Hilary Benn
Those protections have been drawn up following extensive consultation with veterans organisations, and I gave the House a commitment yesterday evening that I will continue to talk to veterans, the Royal British Legion, the veterans commissions and others to make sure that we get them right.
Sarah Hall
My constituents Colin and Wendy Parry, whose 12-year-old son Tim was murdered, along with three-year-old Johnathan Ball, in the 1993 Warrington bombing, have waited over 30 years for justice. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government act on the extracts of the Shawcross report and the all-party parliamentary group on Northern Ireland’s 2018 recommendations, and that there will be work across Government to deliver justice for Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Will he meet me to discuss these matters?
Hilary Benn
The whole House will once again want to express its sympathy to all the families affected by that terrible bombing. The Government and predecessor Governments have raised this issue with the Libyan authorities. Engaging with them is a difficult process, and there are complications to do with the way in which their assets are held. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is the lead on this matter, and I will make sure that the appropriate Minister hears the request that my hon. Friend has made.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Is it not the reality that this legislation has failed to win the confidence of many who served, and that we now need clear, robust protections against repeated investigations so that we honour our veterans in practice and not just in rhetoric?
Hilary Benn
Those protections, including against repeated investigations, are clearly set out in the Bill that the House gave a Second Reading to yesterday. I hope that, as people come to understand that they are there and how they work, they will offer the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Yesterday in the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would not appoint any paramilitaries to the victims and survivors group. In light of that undertaking, will he now underwrite it by indicating that he will accept an amendment to put into statutory form that there cannot be any paramilitary serving on that group? If his undertaking is good, let us make it even better by putting it in statute.
Hilary Benn
From memory, I gave that undertaking three times at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hoped that it would provide the hon. and learned Member with the assurance that he seeks, because I am clear that no one with that record will be appointed to the victims and survivors panel.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Yesterday, along with the Veterans Minister, I met a group of special forces veterans based in Cornwall. The legacy Act’s immunity scheme, which would have enabled immunity for terrorists and included other key provisions, was ruled against by our domestic courts. Is it not the case that any new Government would have had to deal with that?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right—that is indeed the case. It was wrong to bring forward legislation to seek to give immunity to terrorists, which is what the last Government’s legacy Act did, and that is probably the principal reason why it had no support in Northern Ireland, including from victims and survivors. It is a fundamental principle that we believe in the rule of law and that it should apply to everyone. That is why the Government are acting, through the legislation and the remedial order, to finally lay that failed attempt at immunity to rest.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Was the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris wrong when he said that there were no new protections for veterans in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Hilary Benn
There clearly are new protections for veterans in the troubles Bill—throughout the legislation—that were never in the previous legislation that the last Government passed. We have laid them out to the House, and the veterans community and others can see clearly what they are.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?
Hilary Benn
I have raised that question in my conversations with the Irish Government. It is, of course, for the Irish Government to decide whether they wish to hold a public inquiry but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Irish Government have committed to co-operate fully with the inquiry that the last Government established, both through the memorandum of understanding on the provision of information and the commitment they have made to legislate to allow witnesses to give evidence to it.
Alex Burghart
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?
Hilary Benn
I recognise what the judge said in his judgment four years ago, and I strongly support what the last Government did to establish a public inquiry, but it is for the Irish Government to make that decision. I hope that with the unprecedented co-operation that the Irish Government have undertaken to give the inquiry, they will provide vital information for the inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I hope that the Secretary of State knows, my party and I are hugely supportive of his efforts to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided the legitimate concerns of our veterans are fully met. Will he detail specifically, either now or in writing, which veterans’ groups he has consulted on the wording of the Bill, and which ones have expressed acceptance of the Bill as drafted?
Hilary Benn
I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the veterans’ organisations that the Government, the Defence Secretary, the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have engaged with in drawing up those protections, and I have already indicated to the House the groups that we will continue to talk to as we take that work forward.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s new partnership with the European Union aims to deliver a broad range of economic benefits for Northern Ireland, including smoother flows of trade, protection for the UK’s internal market, reduced costs for businesses and benefits for firms that move agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Matt Turmaine
Does the Secretary of State agree that aligning safety standards and cutting red tape—checks and paperwork—is precisely the kind of support for growth and trade that this Government promised to deliver for business when they were elected last year?
Hilary Benn
I agree with my hon. Friend. The partnership agreement reached with the EU back in May was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly by those in the agrifood sector, because as we take that forward and turn it into a full sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it will bring enormous benefits to firms that are moving those products across the Irish sea from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Come 1 January, veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland will be reduced by 40%, according to suppliers over there. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that veterinary medicines are supplied to Northern Ireland? They ensure animal health but are linked to human health as well.
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have the veterinary medicines working group, and we have been working very closely with the industry. We have set out two schemes, the veterinary medicines health situation scheme and the veterinary medicines internal market scheme. Drawing on the cascade, we are confident that we will ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January to vets, farmers and others who need them.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will retain part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which includes provisions for memorialisation. I would welcome views and suggestions on how to take this forward, including on whether any new memorials should be established.
Jo White
On 5 April 1979, an IRA sniper fired at an armoured vehicle as it entered Andersonstown Royal Ulster Constabulary station, killing Blues and Royals serviceman, Anthony Dykes. My constituent Kathleen, his mother, now aged 94, has never let his memory go. She told me that her son is a forgotten soldier. There are monuments for soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but nothing for those who served in Northern Ireland. Kathleen is now very frail, so I am her voice today, asking the Government to commit to national memorial.
Hilary Benn
On behalf of the whole House, I express our condolences to Kathleen on the loss of her son all those years ago. The names of those service personnel who died on deployment to Operation Banner are rightly listed on the armed forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum as a lasting record of their sacrifice. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s constituent has had a chance to visit there, but perhaps that is something that my hon. Friend might like to facilitate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?
Hilary Benn
As I indicated in an earlier answer, there is already a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. There are other places in which the service and sacrifice of those who served the state is recorded, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial garden, which I had the opportunity to visit. It was extremely moving to look at all the names and remember the huge sacrifice that all those people made in the defence of freedom in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic and his delegation, who are with us in the Gallery? May I also welcome the new Chief Minister of Saint Helena?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Let me start by congratulating Scotland on its magnificent victory last night. It qualified for the World cup for the first time since 1998—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not realise that you were all Scottish MPs!
The Prime Minister
Scotland qualified with fantastic goals, including a cracker from former Arsenal player Kieran Tierney, who was always a favourite with the fans.
My thoughts are with the communities across the country affected by severe flooding, particularly in Monmouthshire. I have been liaising with the First Minister of Wales, and I thank all our emergency services for their response.
My thoughts are also with the family and loved ones of Royal Fleet Auxiliary member James Elliot, who has sadly been lost. I know the contribution that the personnel of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary make, and the risks that they take in the line of duty. My thoughts and, I am sure, the thoughts of the whole House are with those who knew him at this tragic and difficult time for them.
Last Thursday, I visited Anglesey to announce the construction of the country’s first small modular reactor. That is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation, creating more than 6,000 jobs.
On Monday, we introduced the largest overhaul of the asylum policy in modern times, restoring control and fairness, and creating safe and legal routes.
Today, I am pleased to announce that inflation is coming down. There is more to do, but it is an important step. 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.
Kit Malthouse
Many of us are becoming concerned that technical or procedural manoeuvres outside this House may be used to prevent Parliament from reaching a decision on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Government are neutral on the Bill itself, but I presume they are not neutral on the issue of democracy or the primacy of this Chamber. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that the decision of elected Members—and, indeed, the wishes and hopes of the vast majority of the people we serve—will not be frustrated in this way?
The Prime Minister
I know the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue. As he says, the Government are neutral on the passage of the Bill. It is a matter of conscience; there are different and respected views across Parliament, and it is for Parliament to decide in the end on any changes in this Chamber. Scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords is a matter for the Lords, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that any legislation that passes through Parliament is workable, effective and enforceable.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. [Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but working people paid a very heavy price for 14 years of economic failure. Austerity damaged the economy and decimated public services; the botched Brexit deal stifled growth; and the reckless borrowing of the mini-Budget saw mortgages and the cost of living soar.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are determined to tackle inequality; he will be pleased to know that under this Government, wages are up, but we need to do more. We have had a pay increase for the 3.5 million lowest-paid, and the Chancellor will deliver a Budget based on Labour values.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I associate Conservative Members with the remarks the Prime Minister made about James Elliot.
Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government are the first Government in history to float an increase in income tax rates, only to then U-turn on it—all after the actual Budget?
The Prime Minister
I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget is actually next week. She only has one week to go, but I can tell her that it will be a Labour Budget with Labour values. That means that we will concentrate on cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting debt, and cutting the cost of living. Because of the decisions we have already made, inflation is down this morning, the Bank of England has upgraded growth, and we have a record £230 billion of investment in this country under this Government.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that the Budget is next week, but we read all about it in the papers. This is the first Budget to unravel before it has even been delivered. I am afraid that the Chancellor’s cluelessness is damaging the economy now. The Prime Minister needs to end this shambles, so can he confirm today that he will not break another promise by freezing income tax thresholds?
The Prime Minister
The Budget is one week today, and we will lay out our plans then. I have said what we will do, in terms of protecting the NHS and public services; what we will not do is inflict austerity on the country, as the Conservatives did, which caused huge damage. What we will not do is inflict a borrowing spree, like Liz Truss did, which also inflicted huge damage. Have the Conservatives learned anything? The Leader of the Opposition apparently has a golden economic rule—it is very important, this golden rule. It is £47 billion of cuts with no detail. No wonder the Institute for Government says that they are on very shaky foundations. They have not listened, and they have not learned.
Mrs Badenoch
It is quite clear that the Government are going to freeze thresholds; we did not get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, but this is really important. In her Budget speech last year, the Chancellor said:
“I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Why was freezing thresholds a breach of the manifesto last year, but not this year?
The Prime Minister
Every week, the Leader of the Opposition comes along and speculates and distorts. Last year, the Conservatives predicted a recession, and what did we get? The fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of the year. They opposed NHS investment, and what did we get? Five million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government. The Conservatives tried growing the economy with millions on NHS waiting lists, with our schools crumbling and holes in our roofs. It did not work. What do they want to do now? Go back to the same failed experiment.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister talks about speculation. The only people who have been speculating are his Government, every single day for the last three months. He mentioned inflation in his last answer; inflation has nearly doubled since Labour came into office. He wants a round of applause because it has come down a little bit, but I will remind him that food inflation is up to 4.9%. That is making life miserable for all of those people out there.
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition talks about inflation, but it went to 11% and the country is still paying the price. Inflation is down this morning, wages are up and we have had five interest rate cuts, and that is because our fiscal rules are iron-clad. She and the Conservatives have no credibility on the economy. She was a Treasury Minister during the worst decline in living standards on record. She said that Liz Truss got the mini-Budget 100% right. There is not much room for flexibility there—100%; that is full marks. She might want to tell us whether that is still her position—100% right for Liz Truss.
Mrs Badenoch
I was a Treasury Minister at the height of the pandemic, and we cleaned up that mess. Perhaps the Prime Minister will clean up some of his own mess. I will repeat what the Chancellor said, because it is clear that the whole Labour Front-Bench team have forgotten:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
That, however, is what Labour is planning to do next week. All this speculation is having real-world consequences. Just this morning, the UK chair of ExxonMobil said:
“The Government needs to understand that the whole industrial base of the UK is at risk unless they wake up and realise the damage their economic policies are doing.”
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loss of UK industry is the price that the country has to pay for having a clueless Chancellor?
The Prime Minister
On ExxonMobil, it is a difficult time for the workforce there, and we must focus on supporting them. We have been meeting the company for more than six months and explored every possible reasonable avenue. It has been facing losses for the past five years. [Interruption.] It is best to do the detail before you chunter. The site is currently losing £1 million a week. The Leader of the Opposition talks about policy and approach. On energy policy, she follows Reform. On the European convention, she follows the man who wants her job. When her shadow Minister said that we should deport people who are lawfully here to achieve cultural coherence, she pretended that it did not happen. I could go on. She was the Trade Secretary who did not sign any trade deals. She was a cheerleader for the mini-Budget and a cheerleader for open borders, and when the Conservatives were crashing the economy, botching Brexit and running down the NHS, she was right at the centre. She has not got an ounce of credibility.
Mrs Badenoch
On energy policy, what we are doing is listening to industry. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Slinger, please, we do not want to have to sling you out.
Mrs Badenoch
Just this morning, we heard from the chair of one of our largest energy companies. Last week, I had a roundtable with energy companies, and what they had to say about this Prime Minister and his Energy Secretary is unprintable. They are absolutely furious. Our oil and gas industry is dying, and the Prime Minister is standing there, saying he has had meetings. People out there are struggling and the Budget chaos is causing real anxiety. People are not buying houses, businesses are not hiring and they are cancelling investment decisions. Two weeks ago, the Chancellor called a ridiculous press conference to blame everyone else for her having to raise income tax, then last week she U-turned on her own U-turn. We can see that they are instead planning to freeze income tax thresholds, which she said last year would be a breach of their manifesto. They are making it up as they go along. Does the country not deserve better than government by guesswork?
The Prime Minister
Either we renew our country with Labour, or we go to austerity 2.0 with Reform and the Tories. The Tories left waiting lists at record highs and almost a million more children in poverty, and they wrecked our public services. The Leader of the Opposition comes here to talk down the country; we are turning the page, with more NHS appointments, free breakfast clubs, free childcare, more homes and better public services. That is what we are fighting for: a Britain built for all.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for South Dorset, and he is right to champion the revitalisation of our high streets. The Heritage Minister will be delighted to discuss how we can get this iconic building reopened, as he wants. I am pleased that Weymouth secured £20 million in Pride in Place funding, giving his community the power and resources to make a real difference to people’s lives.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s opening remarks? May I also join him in congratulating Scotland on their amazing win against Denmark, and wish them well in the world cup? I hope that Wales will qualify to join England and Scotland.
Every year, there are more than 300 suicides related to problem gambling. It affects hundreds of thousands of families, tearing them apart. Meanwhile, online gambling firms are taking in record revenues of more than £7 billion a year. ITV News is reporting that one of them, Sky Bet, is moving its headquarters to Malta so that it can save tens of millions of pounds in corporation tax. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is time we taxed those firms on their UK profits so that they do not escape, wherever they are registered for tax?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Wales well, as well as Northern Ireland—I should like to see all four nations in the finals.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised the very important issue of suicide, in men’s health awareness month. I think that the whole House would want to work together on anything that can prevent it. If all of us think about individuals we may have known who lost their lives through suicide, we will recognise that it is something that touches almost every one of us and all our families as well. We will of course look at the link between suicide and gambling, and take whatever measures we can to reduce suicide. It is a very important issue.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply, and we look forward to the Government’s taking action on that.
Let me raise another domestic matter. Next to the River Cherwell in Oxfordshire, a field is now covered in an enormous mound of rubbish, 150 metres long and up to 12 metres high. The water is now lapping against the waste and carrying it into the river. It is just one of many sites where organised criminal gangs are illegally dumping their waste on our countryside and getting away with it. This is a shocking environmental emergency, so will the Prime Minister instruct the Environment Agency to clean it up now?
The Prime Minister
These are utterly appalling scenes. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a criminal investigation is under way and specialist officers are tracking down those responsible. The Environment Agency will use all available powers to ensure that the perpetrators cover the cost of the clean-up that must now follow. We have boosted the agency’s budget for tackling waste crime by 50% and given councils new powers to seize and crush fly-tippers’ vehicles, and lawbreakers can now face up to five years in jail.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud to lead an open, tolerant, generous country. To maintain that principle, we must restore order and control, fix the utterly broken system left by the Conservatives, and end the division that others seek to exploit. That includes creating safe and legal routes and recognising those who contribute, integrate and strengthen our society, while at the same time reducing the number of illegal arrivals and removing those with no right to be here. That is a fair, progressive system which meets modern challenges.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Governments of France, Germany and the United States have all extracted compensation from Libya for their citizens who were affected by Gaddafi-led terrorism across the world. Why are the British Government continuing to fail citizens of the United Kingdom who suffered to a huge extent through the importation of arms, and, in particular, the tonnes of Semtex that Gaddafi supplied to the IRA, giving rise to Enniskillen, Warrington, the Baltic Exchange and multiple other incidents? Why is no compensation being extracted from Libya for our citizens when it can be done for others? Will the Prime Minister at least meet representatives of the almost forgotten, but still campaigning, families of those affected by Gaddafi’s terrorism?
The Prime Minister
So many suffered from Gaddafi’s actions, and the hon. and learned Member is absolutely right to raise this really serious issue. We are working hard on it, and I will absolutely make sure that the meeting he asks for is set up with the relevant Minister, so that we can give the full position and take onboard what the families have to say.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his honesty. It is never easy to stand up and say what he has, and I hope he understands just how important that is for others who are suffering, who will be inspired to talk openly about their experiences, and, importantly, to get the help that they need.
I am really proud to publish the first-ever men’s health strategy today to tackle challenges that disproportionately affect men, including certain cancers and suicide, which is tragically the biggest killer of men under 50. We will invest millions in helping more men access mental health support, in better care for former miners, and in rolling out at-home blood tests to tackle prostate cancer. I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out; I think it is so brave and important. It has been done across the House—this is not a party political issue—but it is always very powerful. It is a model for all of us.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her important question. I have teenage children in secondary school, and I know this is an issue for concerned parents and teachers. The reality of the statistics is that the majority of schools already ban smartphones—[Interruption.] They allow children to bring their phones to school but they ban them in schooltime and lessons. Of course we will always keep this under review, but we have got to take steps that will be effective. I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member is putting to me, but we need to deal with it effectively.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s dedicated campaign means that Peterborough has one of the first youth guarantee pilots in the country. We inherited an awful situation where almost 1 million young people were neither earning nor learning, and we refused to accept that. That is why we are delivering the new youth guarantee, investing a record £3 billion into apprenticeships and increasing the national minimum wage for 16 to 20-year-olds. Reform and the Tories say that the minimum wage is too high, but they are totally wrong. We are going to focus on every young person to give them the chance to succeed.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Mr Speaker
Order. You might say it’s the way he tells them, but things might be worse, because it’s the way I tell them.
Lee Anderson
Our Reform-led councils have already identified savings of more than £330 million in the first six months.
Lee Anderson
The Prime Minister may shake his head, propped up by his gullible Back Benchers, but here is a challenge: will he guarantee that all the cancelled elections from this year and the proposed local elections for next year will go ahead in May 2026? Go on—be a man.
The Prime Minister
I did not realise the hon. Gentleman was quite so good at stand-up comedy. He talks about dog whistles. Last week, the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), said that he did not have time to condemn the racist comments of his fellow MP, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin); he also said he did not have time to condemn members of his party calling children in care “evil”. He did not have time for that. I wonder if the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) could ask his party leader, sitting just next to him, whether he has time to give an explanation of the stories in today’s papers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. There has been a surge in response to illegal shops selling products they should not be selling and not paying their taxes—this is very important. Raids in October saw more than 900 arrests, almost £11 million of criminal profits seized and almost £3 million-worth of illegal gear destroyed. We need to go further to protect our high streets, which is why we are giving councils powers to prevent certain shops from even opening, supporting them to deal with unwanted shops and, through the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, cracking down on rogue retailers who break the law.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Pam is staggeringly bad—absolutely terrible. If he could provide me with the full details, I will make sure that the Government join him in doing whatever we can in his constituent’s case.
Before I sit down, I will take a moment to send my warmest congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on getting engaged on Thursday, I believe. The proposal was right here in Parliament—you never know what you might find in this Dispatch Box, Mr Speaker. On behalf of my party and, I am sure, the whole House, I wish him and Connor a lifetime of happiness.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Because of our actions, house building near stations like Crewe will now be a default yes. That means tens of thousands of homes delivered far sooner for families, with great transport links as standard. I will make sure that he meets the relevant Ministers to drive forward growth. Every step we have taken to deliver more homes has been opposed by the parties opposite. They are the blockers; Labour are the builders.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
We are delivering a record crackdown on illegal working in the gig economy, and expanding right-to-work and facial recognition checks, which are really important. We are also introducing a new criminal offence of trespassing with intent to commit a crime through the Crime and Policing Bill.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Based on their reaction today, Conservative Members may not care or remember, but every day I see the cost to my constituents in Bournemouth West of years of cuts to public services—youth services gone, neighbourhood policing decimated and no NHS dentist appointments. Can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no return to austerity under this Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
I certainly can. The austerity that the Conservatives imposed on the country destroyed our public services, and we are still paying the price. We will be cutting waiting lists, cutting the debt and cutting the cost of living—fair choices to secure Britain’s future, not a return to the failure of the Conservative party.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
This Friday we commemorate the 51st anniversary of the Birmingham pub bombings, where 21 people lost their lives in what is still the largest unsolved murder in our history. The families do not believe that the approach set out by the Government will discover the truth, and they think that only a public inquiry will do. Can we now have the meetings in order to hear the families’ concerns directly, and agree an approach that will not just command confidence but find the truth about who bombed Birmingham?
The Prime Minister
My deepest sympathies remain with the bereaved and survivors of the horrific pub bombings in Birmingham in 1974. We believe that the most appropriate route is through the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, but my right hon. Friend has raised this issue directly with me and of course I will ensure that the relevant meeting is set up, so that he and the families can put their point of view for us to consider.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I know how important face-to-face banking is to local communities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are rolling out banking hubs. Decisions over locations are taken independently, but they should be rolled out wherever there is a need for one, and of course there is more to come. In answer to his question, I will make sure that he gets the meeting that he requests, so that we can have a look at his proposal.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister is aware, November marks Islamophobia Awareness Month. This Labour Government have shown a steadfast commitment to supporting Muslim communities, particularly through consulting on the definition of Islamophobia. Given anti-Muslim hate is at a record level in the UK, can the Prime Minister outline the steps this Government will take to tackle the rising level of racism and xenophobia against Muslims in Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He has always been a strong champion on this. Anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. The increase in incidents must be addressed. It is why we are increasing funding to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools across the country. It is why we have announced a new fund to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims, and we continue to work on the definition of anti-Muslim hatred.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises a serious issue. I am not quite sure what he is asking the Government to do—to step in and nationalise it I do not think would be the right thing.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. On 5 March at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister said these words:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Since then, I have repeatedly asked Ministers for Cornwall’s unique place on this island to be recognised through devolution. When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill comes back to the House next week, will the Prime Minister help me explicitly enshrine Cornish devolution and Cornish national minority status in that Bill?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, he has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions already. He is a great champion for Cornwall. We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. We have provided half a million pounds to support distinctive Cornish culture, including the Cornish language.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister knows that, last week, nine four-star generals made it plain that yesterday’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is doing harm to the British Army already. The most acute damage is being felt by the Special Air Service. It is already affecting its recruitment, retention, morale and operational effectiveness. As a result, lawyers acting for the SAS Regimental Association have sent a letter before action to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know of no precedent for this in the entire history of the British Army, and this reflects—because it is so important—how important it is, so may I make a plea to the Prime Minister? Will he involve himself personally to ensure that 60, 70 and 80-year-old soldiers, who have carried out actions that most of us would view as heroic, are not persecuted in the coming years, because now it is a matter not of national security, but of national honour?
The Prime Minister
May I thank the right hon. Member for his question and reassure him on the protections that he seeks for veterans? It is a very important issue, and he has continually and rightly raised it. There will be protection from repeat investigations, so the commission does not go over old ground without compelling reasons. There will be protection from cold calling, and protection in old age, so that elderly veterans are respected. Those who do contribute to the legacy process will have a right to anonymity, a right to stay at home to give evidence remotely and a right to be heard through the commission. That is the work that we are doing, and I am happy to discuss it further with him.
Mr Speaker
To end no doubt on the subject of Scotland’s victory, I call Torcuil Chrichton.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
When the Prime Minister next meets the President of the United States, will he ask him if he knows any reasonably priced hotels near the MetLife stadium in New Jersey, where the world cup final is to be held, and, as we are about to provide the biggest boost to whisky exports since our trade deal was signed, will he gently ask the Chancellor to consider excise duties next week so that we Scots can continue celebrating at reasonable prices?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is important that we do everything we can to support whisky. I am really pleased with the progress we are making with the United States, and of course with India under that trade deal, and I will continue to discuss what more we can do with my hon. Friend.
Flooding: Monmouthshire
(1 day, 3 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
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if she will make a statement on the recent severe flooding impacting Monmouthshire and what support will be made available for those affected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
My first thoughts, and those of the Secretary of State, are with all the people and businesses affected by the flooding over the weekend. The impact in Monmouthshire has been devastating for local residents and traders and I know that hon. Members across the House will be thinking of them as they recover from this dreadful storm.
I am answering this urgent question because the Secretary of State is in Monmouthshire to thank first responders and to meet the community and thank them for their efforts. She is there with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), who has been supporting her local community since the flooding across the weekend. I also pay tribute to the emergency responders, the local residents who have rallied together, and the mayor of Monmouth, Jackie Atkin, who has raised a substantial sum for the community.
As the House will be aware, flooding is a devolved matter; however, the Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister over the weekend and offered the UK Government’s support for the Welsh Government’s response. My ministerial colleague who is here with me today, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), has also been in touch with the Deputy First Minister. The Environment Agency has offered support locally, including any mutual aid that may be requested by Natural Resources Wales, which operates in the area. We see the number of these events increasing, which demonstrates why our climate response on flooding is so important.
Today the Floodmobile response sponsored by Flood Re is in Monmouth, a mobile demonstration unit which showcases dozens of property flood resilience measures and techniques that can help keep homes and other buildings safer during a flood. That is reaching out to the community. I also bring hon. Members’ attention to what we are doing to support people to access insurance through our partnership with Flood Re, a joint initiative between the Government and the insurance industry to ensure that households at the highest risk of flooding can access affordable insurance.
In the financial year ’24-’25 alone, Flood Re provided cover for over 345,000 household policies. Government officials have met Monmouthshire county council over the weekend to discuss emergency funding; the Deputy First Minister was also there over the weekend to meet first responders and the community, and opportunities are being made available through the emergency financial assistance scheme. The Welsh Government have been working very closely with the council and all the emergency services, and have committed over £370 million to reduce risks to communities across Wales. The Welsh Government are doing everything they can at this very difficult time for the community and for businesses in Monmouthshire.
Mims Davies
This weekend, tragic and heart-wrenching floods affected families and their loved ones, resulting in evacuation from their properties in Monmouth after the River Monnow burst its banks. That, in turn, has blighted businesses with devastating consequences. This horrific experience also hit hard nearby areas, including Abergavenny and Skenfrith village. There are desperate families and business owners across Monmouthshire who have lost their homes and their livelihoods. They have literally lost everything, with Christmas looming—a key time also for hospitality.
I thank the emergency services and all the volunteers, including many local councillors and Peter Fox, Member of the Senedd. They have done fantastic work around the clock to assist, safeguard and do what they can to help and support those impacted. It is now vital that, without any delay, the necessary support reaches every single person who has been affected by these devastating floods, and that their longer term needs are also met. Local people report that they do not have any clarity, answers or insight on what to expect, beyond initial rescue and community kindness. They have been told that discussions are ongoing.
The First Minister outlined this week in the Senedd some support and the Prime Minister also offered support to Monmouthshire. Will the Minister provide details on what exactly that means, practically, on the ground in the coming weeks? Will the Minister outline a timeframe for when support will reach the people of Monmouthshire and what precisely it will entail? It is reported that some insurance companies will not pay, as they meet only storm damage, not flood damage. Locals want urgent resources, not endless form-filling for the Senedd. They need urgent help now and for it to be fast-tracked, they say, via the council. Finally, does the Minister agree that time is of the essence in answering those vital questions, to ensure that the anxieties of residents and businesses do not worsen?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that time is of the essence. My heart goes out to all those impacted by the storm over the weekend. It must be absolutely dreadful for those people to see their business or home flooded after all the hard work they have put in all their lives; I cannot image the trauma and the difficulty they are going through.
As I said, the First Minister spoke to the Prime Minister: the Prime Minister reached out over the weekend to look at how support can be offered following the flooding. The First Minister has also been looking at how funding can be provided in the least bureaucratic way possible to those impacted. We are a few days after the event and the nature of the support will become clear as the clean-up continues. As the days go on, we will work with emergency services and those impacted. The Welsh Government have emergency financial assistance schemes for just these very scenarios. They have kicked in and are being used. Proposals for support are being prepared. Local government financial officials are there on the ground. The Secretary of State is there on the ground today. We are doing all we can, working hand in hand with the Welsh Government, the council and the mayors, to make sure that those impacted get the support they need as quickly as possible.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My constituency neighbour and very diligent representative, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), is as we speak in Abergavenny and will join the Secretary of State in Monmouth shortly, meeting and listening to those affected by the devastating floods which hit Monmouth, Abergavenny, Skenfrith and the villages. She has asked me to say a very big heartfelt thank you to the emergency services, all the authorities and all those who have helped for the incredible community effort and many kindnesses shown over the past few days, which have included offers of beds, homes, donations and more. Hundreds and hundreds of businesses and homes will be affected and it will take many months to clear up. I know that my hon. Friend is liaising with the Prime Minister, Departments and the Welsh Government—this is a devolved issue and there will be many asks—but may I ask on her behalf that we continue to offer support in the many ways that will be needed in the period? I am also mindful of other areas impacted by flooding, including my own.
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) has been so diligent. I was on the phone with her over the weekend, and I know that she has been speaking to the Welsh Government. I was also on the phone to the Deputy First Minister over the weekend, and I have been in contact with Natural Resources Wales and local community groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire has been out there in her wellies, helping with the clean-up. I know that she feels this as deeply as those who have been impacted. The support we will be there, and we will continue to work together. Although flooding is a devolved matter, it reaches right across the country. Wherever we can help, we will. We are working together to ensure that we resolve this at pace and help the people who need it.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The recent floods in Monmouthshire have been devastating for local communities, and our thoughts are with everyone affected as they try to return to some sense of normality. I would also like to pay tribute to the emergency services and everyone who has worked tirelessly to keep residents safe throughout these events.
Last year, we saw attempts by multiple fire and rescue authorities in Wales to close small fire stations, which often house the equipment needed to respond to major floods like the ones we have just seen. Two of the proposed closures are in my constituency in Knighton and Crickhowell. Crickhowell is just a stone’s throw away from Monmouthshire, and the services that are based there often go over the border to help out. Will the Minister clarify what engagements the Government have had with fire services in Wales on potential closures? Does she agree that it is vital that we keep small stations open to protect residents in rural Wales from devastating events such as the ones we have just seen?
Anna McMorrin
I also pay huge tribute to the first responders and emergency units and the fire and rescue service, who did an outstanding job over the weekend and will continue to do so—and right across Wales, too. It is important that we protect those who put themselves in danger and support people in need. I am happy to write to the hon. Member about the details of the closures.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney neighbours Monmouthshire. Last winter, we experienced coal tip slipping because of heavy rain. People experiencing flooding deserve all our support. Can the Minister please tell us more about the support available to residents who are claiming insurance or emergency financial help in order to get through this really difficult time?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend has been a strong advocate in this area, and I thank him for that. The UK Government have pledged £143 million in this Parliament for coal tip safety. This is a big issue that needs to be continually monitored. Coal tips were being monitored over the weekend throughout Storm Claudia and they will continue to be monitored. The Government take this issue very seriously and are investing in coal tip safety.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I appeal to the Minister to help us in one way? Although this is a devolved matter, it is possible in the internet age very easily to make charitable donations, so could she investigate whether there is a reliable local charity to which people across the country can make donations? Could she perhaps circulate the details of that after this urgent question?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will absolutely take away. There has been a lot of money raised locally; I mentioned the local mayor, who has raised significant funds. That is fantastic, but I know that a lot of people will want to help, so I will certainly take away that suggestion.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I also pay tribute to all those affected and the emergency responders—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) for the tireless effort she has put in since the flooding. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said and for what the Prime Minister said earlier about the conversations and constant interaction between the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the First Minister. Collaboration between our Governments when there are civil emergencies such as this is integral, so will she assure me that that collaboration continues and that the people of Monmouthshire will have everything they need from us? Will she also push the Welsh Government to do everything they can to ensure that those affected get through this crisis?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. Collaboration is key. In situations like this, where speed is of the essence, it is important that we work together quickly and seamlessly. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding has been in touch with the Deputy First Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). We will all continue to work together to resolve this and make sure that those impacted get support and help as quickly and seamlessly as possible.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I also associate myself with the Minister’s comments. My thoughts are very much with the people of Monmouthshire as they try to get their lives back on track. She rightly mentioned the increasing frequency of severe weather events. Further to the very wise words of the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), in addition to collaboration between the two Governments, in light of the increasing frequency of severe weather events, I wonder whether it is time for us to consider a central resilience fund to provide the additional emergency support that is sadly becoming far too routine?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member rightly points out the important link between climate change and increased flooding, which I mentioned earlier. It is very important to build resilience into communities and housing. I know that there is a fund. We are putting funding in; this Government take very seriously that investment, whether it is in new build, existing build or communities, businesses and infrastructure at risk. We absolutely need to ensure that with changing weather patterns, increased rainfall and further flooding, our communities and people across the country are safe.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
On behalf of residents in flood-prone West Worcestershire who approached Storm Claudia with trepidation, I convey our sympathies to people in Monmouthshire. Experiencing a flood like that is one of the most terrible things that can happen a community. Could I ask the Minister to ask the Minister for Water and Flooding, who is beside her on the Front Bench, to follow up with the Environment Agency on two projects it is working on in West Worcestershire—in Severn Stoke and Tenbury Wells—to improve flood resilience? I would love it if the Minister could give the Environment Agency a nudge to complete that work.
Anna McMorrin
My colleague has heard that loudly and clearly and will get back to the hon. Member.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
There are few around the country better equipped to empathise with the people of Monmouthshire than my people in Tewkesbury in north Gloucestershire. Will the Minister join me in thanking the volunteers of the Severn Area Rescue Association who were called out this weekend, as they so often are? Will she also tell me when her Department will respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience in England?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for his words to the people of Monmouthshire. I pay tribute to his communities. It is important that we support communities right across the country, wherever they are. This Government are intent on doing that.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements? We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider?
Anna McMorrin
Of course, when there are critical or major incidents, such as the flooding in Monmouthshire, we are ready to consider anything. Where we need that support, collaboration is important and that extends to all our Departments. In every way possible, we will ensure that people, businesses and infrastructure are looked after, and that can and would extend to Defence if necessary.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My heart goes out to the people of Monmouthshire, which is just downriver from my constituency. Terrible damage has also been done in South Herefordshire, with places such as Ewyas Harold very badly affected. We know that these things are happening more frequently and more severely. It is also tragic to see the huge amount of soil that is washed off the land at times like this. Does the Minister recognise the hugely important role that farmers play in managing floodwater and building resilience to these sorts of events? Will she invest more in nature-friendly farming—river-friendly farming—to help prevent these sorts of disasters, which do so much damage to people’s livelihoods?
Anna McMorrin
It is exceptionally important, for those who have a duty to their land, to manage that land safely. These events have a devastating impact and soil is washed away, but there are things that can be done further upstream to prevent flooding. The Welsh Government have put in place projects right across Wales to ensure that happens. Just this morning I was talking to Powys county council about some of those taking place there.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Flood Re’s report earlier this year highlighted that, in the face of more extreme weather and more frequent flooding, many insurers are increasing excesses and premiums often to eyewatering levels or withdrawing insurance support altogether. What immediate support are the Government putting in place for people who find themselves without insurance?
Anna McMorrin
An emergency financial initiative is available. Welsh Government officials are working with community groups, the local council and us to ensure that they have access to those emergency funds.
Driving Without Insurance (Penalties and Enforcement)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the penalties for driving without insurance; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report containing an assessment of the effectiveness of existing methods of enforcing the law on driving without insurance; and for connected purposes.
In preparing this ten-minute rule Bill, I have had the opportunity to speak with so many incredible organisations and charities that work to deliver better road safety. At the outset I want to thank, in particular, Brake, Protect Young Drivers, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, Thames Valley Police and the fantastic Road Safety Foundation, which is based in my Bracknell constituency.
I am delighted to bring forward this Bill during Road Safety Week, which raises awareness of the importance of safer driving at a time of year when dark nights come down earlier, fog and icy conditions can increase hazards—we even had snow today—and the temptation to drink and drive is heightened by the festivities. I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering a national road safety strategy, and I am grateful to the road safety Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for taking the time to speak with me on several occasions about the progress of developing this strategy. Remarkably, it will be the first update to national road safety in well over a decade. Where the previous Government failed to act, we will, because every accident, every death on our roads is a tragedy, and too often an avoidable one.
Last month I published my road safety report, which captured the real concerns of Bracknell Forest residents regarding road safety in our community. I thank the almost 500 constituents who responded to the campaign and shared their views on everything from speeding and antisocial driving to the illegal use of off-road bikes and scooters. I am honoured to discuss the report today to ensure that the voices of Bracknell residents are heard and acted upon, making our roads safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike. Vitally, I have shared a copy of my report with the road safety Minister so that Bracknell Forest’s voice can be heard at the heart of the upcoming national road safety strategy.
The findings of the report revealed a critical level of concern among residents and calls for tougher action on antisocial driving. The overwhelming issue that residents felt affected road safety was speeding, followed by off-road bikes and e-scooters. Almost 80% of residents either agreed or strongly agreed that people drive too quickly down residential roads in Bracknell Forest, with similar figures for speeding on main roads.
To tackle that, residents agreed that there should be more speed cameras and Community Speedwatch initiatives. They also called for more appropriate speed limits, speed bumps and more visible police patrols, with police providing more information on local patrols so residents can see how their concerns are being addressed. The report identifies a clear public mandate for decisive intervention on road safety, prioritising enforcement and infrastructure upgrades. Concerns were also raised about overly bright car headlights, and I am delighted that the Government have already listened on that point and announced that further research will be conducted into headlight glare.
Residents supported more action around schools, with particular concerns that an accident was simply waiting to happen. I heard about the challenges caused by pick-up and drop-off times, the need for more safe crossing points and the widespread support for the implementation of school streets. I am pleased to share that directly with the local council and offer it my full support as it works to address road safety around schools. Residents also raised concerns about potholes, which can cause damage to vehicles and lead to unsafe driving as motorists do their best to swerve around them. That is why I back the Government’s £3.3 million investment in Bracknell Forest’s roads this year, with Bracknell Forest council committing an extra £5 million over four years to pothole repair and other road maintenance.
When we design road safety initiatives, and indeed roads, it is vital that we listen to the experts. That is why I want to highlight the work of a fantastic organisation based in Bracknell called the Road Safety Foundation. When I met the Road Safety Foundation, it emphasised how important it was that speed limits reflect the purpose of roads and the vulnerability of the users they support. By mapping the risk on major roads across the UK, the Road Safety Foundation plays an essential role in driving road safety improvements and, ultimately, saving lives.
I now turn to the subject at hand: uninsured drivers. Sadly, uninsured driving is all too common. Every 20 minutes someone is the victim of an uninsured or hit-and-run driver, every four minutes an uninsured vehicle is seized, and every year uninsured drivers cost the UK economy £1 billion. A crackdown on uninsured drivers on our roads is essential to improving road safety, as data has shown that those who drive uninsured are often disproportionately involved in road accidents and also more likely to commit offences that put others at risk, such as hit-and-run incidents, speeding and driving under the influence. The economic cost of uninsured driving, which includes compensation for victims, emergency services, medical costs and loss of productivity, is significant. This is a question of fairness: we cannot allow the costs of those who flout the law to be shouldered by honest drivers who are paying hiked premium fees to cover that.
Mr Speaker, I want you to imagine for a second that you were involved in a car accident. Imagine an inconsiderate driver has been going too fast, or not paying attention to the road, and has crashed into you. You are standing there on the roadside, perhaps injured, your car a write-off. You are feeling incredibly shaken, as anyone would. But thank goodness you have insurance. Now, Mr Speaker, imagine you find out that the other driver is not insured. Suddenly, a stressful situation becomes so much worse. The victims of accidents involving uninsured drivers often face delays and complications in securing compensation, which only exacerbates the immense emotional and financial toll.
I recently met the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to hear about “Operation Drive Insured”, a week-long UK campaign with the National Police Chiefs’ Council that saw police forces increase their operational activity in tackling uninsured driving. It involved identifying and removing uninsured vehicles from the road, as well as an excellent public awareness campaign. During our conversation, the MIB highlighted the need for a real-time database of all uninsured drivers, which would make it easier for the police to catch those driving uninsured. At the moment, it is far too easy for criminals to take out fake insurance under assumed names and present that to police on the roadside because insurers do not update the national insurance database in real time.
Insurers also do not always carry out checks to verify drivers’ identities and ensure that they have not been disqualified from driving. I have even heard how some uninsured drivers are now using AI to create fake policies when pulled over by the police, making it more difficult for the police to clamp down on uninsured driving in real time as they struggle to instantly verify the legitimacy of these documents at the roadside. Those who forge or deliberately fabricate such documents, through AI or any other means, are putting other road users at risk and must face tough sanctions.
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau estimates that there are 1 million uninsured drivers on our roads, a figure that suggests that existing penalties are not providing a serious enough disincentive. A fixed penalty notice for owning a car without insurance starts at just £100, which rises to £300 and six points on a person’s licence if they are caught actually driving it. The police also have the power to seize and crush the vehicle, but given the serious consequences that can result from driving uninsured, my view is that these penalties should be increased.
Cracking down on the number of uninsured drivers will also help to tackle high insurance premiums, because claims made against uninsured drivers are made through the MIB and ultimately paid for through mandatory annual contributions from all UK motor insurers. If we can reduce the number of those driving uninsured, we can reduce costs for the vast majority of drivers who do the right thing by insuring their vehicles. Insurance premiums rose, on average, by 21% between 2022 and 2024, before falling by around £50 this year, so I welcome the action that the Government are taking, through the motor insurance taskforce, to tackle the high cost of driving for the honest many.
This Road Safety Week, let us all commit ourselves to taking the action needed to make driving safer for everyone, prevent crashes and save lives. Let us tackle the costly problem of uninsured motorists, deliver on our manifesto commitment to an ambitious national road safety strategy, and back the drivers of Great Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Swallow, Sarah Russell, Chris Vince, Rachel Taylor, Josh Newbury and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Peter Swallow accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 May 2026, and to be printed (Bill 331).
Point of Order
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important matter of national security. This morning, the Secretary of State for Defence gave a speech on television—I think it was in Downing Street, not in the House—about a very serious incident in which, he said, a Russian spy ship has tried to blind British military pilots with lasers. This is very important, but there has been no statement in the House and we have not been briefed. I wonder if you can give any clarification on this matter.
Mr Speaker
It has not been brought to my attention either. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening. I take this very seriously. Matters relating to the defence of the realm should always come first to this House, and I will always make arrangements for a Secretary of State to make a statement to this House on very important matters. The hon. Gentleman’s point has been heard. Who knows? Let us see. Yesterday, the Government reflected and came to the House with a statement later. Let us see if they can reflect again today on this important matter. If it was good enough for a TV interview, it is certainly good enough for this House to know. I will leave it at that.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 92 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 41
Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42.
Alex Norris
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.
As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.
This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.
Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.
It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.
On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.
I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.
The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.
Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.
I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them?
Alex Norris
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is horrified by our attempts to crack down on organised immigration crime, which is the ultimate industry in profiting from misery and desperation, and which leads to vulnerable people losing their lives and has such impact on public confidence domestically. If he waits a little longer, I hope I can give him a degree of succour on the point he makes.
The amendments seek to criminalise those who are concerned in the supply of relevant articles for use in immigration crime and will bring into scope possession with intent to supply, or the making of an offer to supply, such an article. The amendments will also bring into scope those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.
Lords amendments 16 to 32 strengthen the powers of search and seizure in relation to electronic devices. Lords amendment 16 seeks to expand the definition of “authorised officer” to include officers of the police services of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Lords amendments 17 to 32 ensure that those officers have the relevant safeguards, protections and legal clarity when utilising the powers, and make the required consequential changes.
Lords amendments 5, 6 38, 39 and 40 were tabled in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill and debate in the other place, and ensure that proportionate, robust and appropriate safeguards are in place. Lords amendments 5 and 6 introduce additional safeguards to the offences set out in clause 13, and exempt from these offences any item or substance designed for personal cleanliness or hygiene. This includes items such as soap, toothpaste, sanitary products and other essentials that individuals may carry for personal dignity and wellbeing. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) a degree of comfort. Limitations to this exemption are set out where certain items present a heightened risk of being repurposed as weapons or used in ways that endanger others. That strikes the appropriate balance on this important point.
Clause 43 enables stronger conditions to be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal. Lords amendments 38, 39 and 40 do not alter the original intention of the clause, but ensure that the Bill sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring or curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security or public safety, or where they have been convicted of a serious crime or a sexual offence.
The Government made a number of small amendments in the other place that seek to clarify the provisions to which they relate. Lords amendments 33, 34 and 35 are minor and technical changes to remove references to data protection legislation that are redundant following the enactment of section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Lords amendment 36 amends the consultation requirements to require the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the relevant Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations that determine the purpose for which trailer registration information may be shared with the police. The amendment does not affect the Secretary of State’s discretion to consult representatives of police bodies.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and I do not think he has heard everything that has been said. That is rather unfair, and I do not expect people to do that. He should know better.
Alex Norris
I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort.
Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK.
This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their work on and scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to thank my colleagues Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Davies of Gower, as well as numerous members of the other place, including Lord Jackson, for their work.
The subject of the Bill is extremely important to this country and its future. I am afraid the reality is that, under this Labour Government, illegal immigration has got much, much worse. We are in the grip of an immigration crisis. Small boat crossings have surged. They are up 55% against the same period before the election. In the nine months before the election, the number of people in hotels had gone down by 47%, but since this Government came to power, it has gone up.
This country is our home; it is not a hotel. We need stronger borders to make sure that those who come to our country share our values, contribute to society, and are not simply a drain on the resources that taxpayers fund. The Bill will remove powers that allow us to detain and deport people who arrive here illegally. It will remove powers that allow us to mandate scientific age tests for those who arrive here illegally claiming to be children. It will allow people who break into our country illegally to become British citizens. Those who break into our country should not be allowed to stay.
This week, the Home Secretary announced a new plan, which she says will tackle the immigration crisis.
Lords amendment 37 would ensure transparent data on one of the key contributors to the high immigration that the Government say that they want to reduce. Transparency matters for public trust and accountability. Opposition to the amendment is completely at odds with the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, and the action that she promised us earlier this week. Once again, the Bill has been nowhere near as ambitious or radical as it needs to be to stop dangerous crossings in their tracks. The Government should be using every tool available to control immigration and make our country safer.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his earlier comments. When I speak to constituents in Halesowen, Cradley Heath and Quarry Bank, their message for me is clear: they are concerned about illegal immigration, and they want the Labour party to secure our borders. That was one of our manifesto commitments, because there is nothing progressive about allowing smuggling gangs to take people across Europe, or about children drowning in the channel. I welcome the Bill, and I welcome the tough measures that the Home Secretary announced on Monday.
I will speak to Lords amendments 7 to 9 and 12 to 15. They are mostly about criminalising the online advertising and marketing of illegal migration actions, often conducted by smuggling gangs. There are lots of reasons why people flee a country and seek refuge in another, including conflict and persecution.
Jim Shannon
I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and the thrust of what the Minister is saying, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman are referring to the fact that we have to ensure that there is a bit of muscle behind the legislation. My colleague Lord Weir was very clear in the other place about our party’s point of view on the legislation. There are people from across the world who flee their home because of persecution or human rights abuses, and who have nowhere to go. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about those who can never go back to their country again? I know people who came to Newtownards in my constituency six or eight years ago, and there are six Syrian families who are still there. They are established in the community. Does he agree that those who flee persecution must be protected in the legislation?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, of course. We are a compassionate country, and a place of refuge for many people who are fleeing persecution or face other issues. Everything that the Government have announced this week, and the measures in the Bill, allow us to be compassionate; but we can also be also tough on the smuggling gangs, who are in no way compassionate, and who are bringing people into this country on very dangerous journeys.
As I said, people are fleeing conflict and poverty, and I have mentioned in other debates the importance of the Foreign Office investing in conflict resolution and prevention in order to mitigate the challenges from which people are fleeing. However, that does not excuse the smuggling gangs that are operating for profit, or the organisations that market these dangerous journeys, often on Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp or Telegram. They are selling the service of smuggling people across continents on dangerous journeys. I am pleased that Lords amendment 8 cracks down on online gangs’ marketing and advertising, and that we have some tough new criminal measures to use against them. I understand the need not to place the liability on the platform providers, but how will we work with those platforms, if we see smuggling gangs advertising routes or selling illegal work opportunities on them? How will we ensure that the legislation is effective?
Lords amendments 12 and 13 are about cracking down on such advertising, even if it is not in the UK. People advertising smuggling opportunities are likely to be based in Europe or the middle east, so it is important that our legislation is extended to allow us to go after the gangs operating outside the UK, where possible, and I welcome that change.
In summary, this is an excellent Bill and I support the amendments. It is important that we use all the powers that we have to go after the smuggling gangs. The legislation is an important step, and I am pleased that we are building on it with what the Home Secretary announced earlier this week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.
Pete Wishart
Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary?
Mr Forster
The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Since we all served on the Committee for this Bill, the Government have announced a “one in, one out” deal with France, and this week, new safe routes were announced by the Home Secretary as part of the new package. Under the “one in, one out” deal, the “one in” will arrive by a safe route, so will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s reforms to the immigration system, given that that is what he has been calling for?
Mr Forster
I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others.
Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step.
The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues.
The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today.
The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture.
In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box.
Chris Murray
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.
It is good to see us making progress on this really important Bill, which is utterly essential to what the Government are trying to achieve on the reform of asylum. Nobody can argue that the asylum system in Britain does not need reform. Public trust has been draining from it, because of the growth in illegal crossings and asylum hotels, and because asylum seekers are drowning in the channel as a result of this vile trade. Only last month, a one-month-old baby drowned off the British coast. That is unacceptable. Some 14 children died last year; if that number of children were dying in any other circumstances, people would call on the Government to go hell for leather in tackling it, and to do anything it took to do so. We must do the same for children who are asylum seekers.
I strongly welcome Lords amendment 8. Asylum crossings in the channel are driven by two factors: supply and demand. “Demand” means the causes of asylum, such as war, climate change, conflict and repression. “Supply” relates to the supply of small boats, gangs who facilitate the crossing, the ability to get over the channel, and the networks upstream funnelling them to Calais. A big part of the operation is the social media enterprise.
More than 10 years ago, I was a justice and home affairs attaché in Paris, working on channel crossings. They took place on lorries at the time, and we were able to clamp down on that, but the fundamental difference between now and then—it was more than 10 years ago—is the existence of social media. There is an incredibly sophisticated network of human traffickers, who are incredibly well financed, as a result of the costs that they put on migrants and organised crime. They use social media, exploit migrants and put them in the boats.
Lords amendment 8 is really important in criminalising the facilitation and advertisement of illegal immigration. My question to the Home Office is whether it is properly stepping up its capabilities, and its engagement with private sector and social media firms, to ensure an impact. It will change the calculus for asylum seekers on the path to the UK if they are given proper information, not misleading information by traffickers.
I turn to the Opposition’s Lords amendment 37, on data collection and international students. Public data on migration is incredibly important. The public want to see control of the immigration system; transparency and data are central to that. However, this Lords amendment is not the way to go about getting proper data and scrutiny of the migration system. That is partly because amendments to primary legislation lead to selective, partial or mandated publication of data that is highly controversial and can be selectively and partially used by people on all sides of the migration debate to make their specific point.
Alex Norris
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.
Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.
I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.
We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.
That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public.
Matt Vickers
Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.
Alex Norris
Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.
Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility.
Matt Vickers
Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.
On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.
Matt Vickers
People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data?
Alex Norris
I am afraid that panto season is starting early, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Alex Norris
We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do.
Alex Norris
I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.
It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that despite his opening remarks and his words about Northern Ireland, the reality and the understanding of people in Northern Ireland is very different, given that we are subject to EU law in this space? This is a very real issue for people in Northern Ireland. They want zero tolerance of illegal entry and fast removal of those who are blocking up our public services, which are already stretched to capacity, so will the Minister go further and have this sovereign UK Parliament legislate for Northern Ireland to protect our borders?
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She may have heard me say before that it is not in the interests of anyone, anywhere in the UK, for the work of establishing order and control at the United Kingdom’s southern border to create displacement challenges with regard to the common travel area. That is something we are very concerned about, and it is something that I talk to colleagues across the UK and beyond about. Of course, we have had very successful interventions in this area, such as Operation Comby.
Turning to her question about future legislation, she will have heard what the Home Secretary had to say the other day. There will be plenty of opportunities within that process to have those sorts of conversations, but our resolution is to make sure that we have a system that establishes order and control. That is what this legislation is in service of, and it is what the work set out on Monday is in service of.
Alex Ballinger
Could the Minister talk more about the data that we already have, how we are properly tracking the number of refugees already, and why Lords amendment 37 is not appropriate?
Alex Norris
As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and discuss it in great detail. [Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out.
Chris Murray
Does the Minister agree that we have a very strong ecosystem of data on migration in this country? For example, the Home Office publishes enormous amounts of data every quarter. The ONS publishes a lot of data, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration publishes and analyses lots of the data that the new occupant of that role collects. We also have an ecosystem of think-tanks, research organisations and universities—for example, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford does amazing work in this space. The challenge is not that data on immigration is not available; it is that people interpret it selectively for their own purposes.
Alex Norris
That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.
I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.
Matt Vickers
People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification?
Alex Norris
It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.
There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to open this discussion on the clauses of a focused but important Bill, designed to drive innovation, enhance legal certainty, and strengthen our standing in the global digital economy. Let me turn first to clause 1—an unassuming clause on the page, but one with important implications for the future of our legal system and our economy.
Clause 1 is the engine room of the Bill. It provides a clear and powerful statement: that a thing—including something digital or electronic—can be recognised as personal property, even if it does not fall within either of the categories that our legal system has traditionally recognised. For centuries the law has drawn a simple line: personal property was either a “thing in possession”, that being a physical object such as a car or a watch, or a “thing in action”, something that exists because the law says it does and is enforced through legal action, such as a debt or a contractual right. However, the world has changed. Technology has leapt forward, and our law must keep pace. Today we have assets such as crypto-tokens. They are not physical objects, yet their existence is not reliant on the law. They do not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories.
Our courts have begun to acknowledge that such assets can and should be the subject of property rights, but without a clear, binding legal foundation, uncertainty remains—uncertainty that could stifle innovation, deter investment, and push the digital economy elsewhere. This Government will not allow that to happen. Driving sustainable growth is a top priority for us, and that means giving businesses and investors the certainty that they need to thrive. With this single clause, we are removing doubt and sending a clear message: we are open for business in the digital age.
By removing ambiguity, clause 1 ensures that those who hold or transact in digital assets are better supported to defend their property rights, transfer them and recover them when it matters most. The Bill reinforces our position as a global jurisdiction of choice for legal innovation, emerging technology and the digital economy. We are leading from the front. To be clear, clause 1 does not attempt to draw rigid lines around what qualifies as property—that is a deliberate choice. It rightly empowers our courts to continue developing the common law, case by case, applying centuries of legal wisdom to the frontiers of a digital economy. The reference to “digital or electronic things” in the Bill simply reflects where the issues most commonly arise today, without boxing in where the law might go tomorrow. The clause paves the way for fairer outcomes in cases of theft, fraud, commercial dispute or insolvency involving digital assets. It will reduce litigation costs, promote market stability and underpin our reputation as a jurisdiction of choice in a digital world. This is a small clause with big consequences. It is a bold, forward-looking step that reaffirms our commitment to legal certainty, technological progress and global leadership.
Clause 2 sets out the title, territorial extent and commencement date. Once granted Royal Assent, the legislation will become the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025. That title—Digital Assets etc—is no accident. It has been carefully chosen to capture the technologies of today, such as crypto-tokens, while keeping the door open to future innovations. This is a law built not just for now but for what may come next. The Act will extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. That will minimise legal discrepancies across jurisdictions and help to ensure that the benefits, such as legal clarity, investor confidence and streamlined dispute resolution, are more widely felt across these jurisdictions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the Bill does not extend to Scotland, owing to differences in property law. However, the Scottish Government introduced their own Digital Assets Bill on 30 September, confirming that certain kinds of digital assets can be objects of property under Scots private law.
Importantly, the Act will come into force the moment it receives Royal Assent—no delays, no retrospective effect—because the legislation does not create new burdens. It confirms and clarifies the law as it has been developing under common law. As a result, there will be immediate certainty, minimal disruption, and a strong foundation for our digital economy. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I am pleased to speak again on behalf of the Opposition as we carry forward the constructive debate that we had on Second Reading.
Let me restate from the outset our support for the Bill, which represents a careful, modest step in the right direction, and preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law while giving just enough statutory certainty to ensure that businesses, innovators and courts know the ground beneath their feet. That balance is vital. If we over-prescribed in statute, we would risk freezing progress. If we left matters entirely to the interpretation of the courts, we would risk fragmentation and delay. The Bill avoids both extremes.
Importantly, this legislation was not born overnight. It is the product of the rigorous work of the Law Commission—work commissioned by the last Conservative Government, who recognised early the need for clarity in this space if the UK was to stay competitive internationally. The commission’s conclusion was clear: certain digital assets simply do not fit neatly into the centuries-old categories of things in possession or things in action. Without intervention, the risk grew that uncertainty would hold back investment, undermine commercial transactions and frustrate innovators and consumers.
The Bill answers that challenge in the right way. It does not attempt to define every kind of digital asset that might emerge. Nobody in this Chamber—or indeed beyond it—can predict the full scope of the technologies that will shape our financial and commercial future in the coming decades. Instead, the Bill does something both restrained and profound: it confirms that digital things are not excluded from attracting property rights merely because they fall outside the old categories. Beyond that, it gives our common law the space it needs to continue doing what it has done for centuries: develop sensibly, case by case, guided by principle rather than by prescription.
That is not to say that the state has been inactive in related causes. Since 2023, cryptoasset promotion has been subject to the Financial Conduct Authority rules, the money laundering regulations have been amended for the new cryptocurrency class, and the Government have consulted on bring crypto-trading platforms and custody services within the broader perimeter of financial regulation. The Bank of England and the FCA are exploring robust frameworks for stablecoins and custody. However, none of this works unless the foundational question, “What is the legal status of these assets?”, is clearly answered. That is exactly what the Bill provides.
Let me end by reiterating what I said on Second Reading: the UK must remain at the forefront of global legal innovation. When technological change accelerates, the temptation can be either to rush into rigid regulation or to do nothing at all. The Bill avoids both pitfalls. It is proportionate, it is principled, and it is rooted in the understanding—championed strongly by the previous Conservative Government—that legal certainty is a foundation for growth, investment and innovation in this area. For all those reasons, the Opposition will continue to support the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively to ensure that it delivers the clarity that our courts, consumers and businesses need.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak once again in this Chamber on the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which creates a modern legal framework that will allow Britain to take every opportunity we can while protecting ourselves in an ever-changing digital age.
The Liberal Democrats support clause 1. It states that a “thing”—including a digital or electronic thing—will not be deprived of legal status as an object of personal property rights merely by reason of the fact that it is neither a thing in action nor a thing in possession. The clause responds to the development of new types of assets such as crypto-tokens, which challenge the traditional categories of property. I am grateful to the other place for scrutinising this legal framework incredibly well. As a result, we have a fine piece of legislation to discuss.
The digital world is often mired in legal ambiguity about how common-law systems treats digital assets. At present, the law recognises two primary forms of personal property: things in possession and things in action. However, digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do no count for a claim against another person, do not really fit easily into either category. The need for clarity is imperative. We risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving cryptoassets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings.
The Bill goes far in ensuring that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the normal categories. Consequently, we also support clause 2, as it requires the Secretary of State to publish codes of practice on the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The clause aims to provide guidance to the courts on how to assess whether a digital asset is the object of personal property rights.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations. Financial Conduct Authority figures indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold cryptoassets—I know because constituency cases are raised with me when things go wrong—and that figure has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, people seeking restitution in insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold, have been operating in a murky legal landscape. The Bill leaves room for the common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individual rights and support our economy.
We know that digital assets can also present risks, particularly fraud, volatility and abuse, but we cannot ignore them; we must face them head on. We need a modern legal framework that bolsters confidence in our economy and in the use of digital assets, and supports the rule of law. The Bill is clear, well written and makes doubly sure that UK law remains relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners and by the Liberal Democrats. I urge colleagues on all sides of the Committee to support its passage.
Sarah Sackman
With the leave of the Committee, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster). It has been a pleasure to discuss the clauses in more detail, and it is good to see constructive consensus about a piece of legislation. I think we all agree that it brings legal certainty, keeps pace with legal innovation, is proportionate, and meets the moment, with the growth of cryptocurrency and other related industries. I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Third Reading
Sarah Sackman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me I start by reiterating my sincere thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their support and insightful contributions. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and for Woking (Mr Forster), and all Members who have contributed throughout the passage of the Bill. Their engagement demonstrates strong, cross-party momentum behind modernising our personal property law.
I also pay tribute to the former Special Public Bill Committee, which gathered expert evidence and was ably led by Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The Law Commission deserves particular recognition for its exemplary work, led by Laura Burgoyne and Christopher Long, and on which this Bill stands. Their engagement with stakeholders has been gold standard and demonstrated the benefits of coherent law reform—transparent, expert-led and deeply consultative. I would also like to thank the former law commissioner Professor Sarah Green for her contribution to this work and for giving evidence at Committee.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this Bill. I thank my policy officials, Alicia Love and Jonathan Fear, the Bill managers, Harry McNeill-Adams and Lily Sullivan, and Helen Hall from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my private office, in particular my private secretary, Amelia Overton, and Meheret Ashenafi.
This is more than a Bill; it is a landmark step towards ensuring that the law of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, not only keeps pace with innovation but leads it. The Bill will give digital pioneers the certainty they need, backed by the legal strength they expect from our country. It shows that our economy is open, our ambition is global, and we are here to support innovation. By supporting the recognition of digital assets as property, the Bill helps establish legal certainty.
The Bill gives industry the confidence to innovate here, knowing that our legal system can support new models of ownership, transfer and settlement. This is how we translate legal reform into economic leadership. It is how we show that we are at the forefront of the technical revolution, and how that can be seen in the real world with the London Stock Exchange’s announcement of a new digital asset platform. This is the first major global stock exchange to implement a blockchain-based system.
This Government are backing growth, backing technology and backing Britain’s future, and as such, I commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
I rise simply to put on the record my thanks, particularly to the Bill Committee and to the Law Commission for its diligence. Yet again we see the great benefit that our state machinery and apparatus as whole derive from having the Law Commission. I have nothing further to add.
Mr Will Forster
I thank colleagues from across the House. It is a good example of cross-party working, delivering a Bill that has been well-scrutinised and is fit for purpose. In that spirit, I hope that the Minister can take that away and encourage her colleagues to do the same with other legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Delegated Legislation
Proposed Development and Road Layout Changes in Crawley Down
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I rise on behalf of the 279 petitioners from Crawley Down in my constituency of East Grinstead, Uckfield and the villages, and the further 370 who have signed the petition online. I present the petition especially on behalf of Joy, an elderly constituent who risks being cut off and isolated should this unwanted and unwarranted development take place.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of East Grinstead and Uckfield,
Declares that the proposal to potentially demolish the existing dwellings in Woodlands Close and to create a significant new access road serving potentially 48 additional homes is inappropriate and would cause significant harm to the wider local community; further declares that the scale of the proposed development is out of keeping with the surrounding area, that residents would be subjected to noise and disruption, that the affordable housing mix of the proposed development is inadequate, that Woodlands Close could not accommodate the volume of traffic that would arise from the development, that the development would risk harming the heritage asset of Grade II listed Burleigh Cottage and the natural environment, and that public consultation regarding this proposal was inadequate and has not taken into account significant flooding risks and topography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Mid Sussex District Council to withhold planning permission for this development to protect the wider local community in Crawley Down and in particular any homes impacted by this significant road layout change which will isolate one dwelling in particular.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003136]
Northwich Railway Station: Accessibility
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
From a debate about the personal property rights of crypto tokens, we move seamlessly into a debate I am proud to have secured on railway station accessibility, specifically at Northwich in my constituency. My thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for giving me the opportunity to talk about it. This is a long-standing issue that affects not just disabled people but the entire community of Northwich. For more than a decade, the station has lacked any step-free access to its second platform, leaving many passengers effectively cut off from half the station and unable to complete their journeys.
As we all know, rail travel is not just about getting from A to B; it is about connecting lives and communities. Our railways provide essential links for people who might otherwise face isolation and exclusion, offering vital access to employment, learning and healthcare and keeping us connected to the people and communities that matter most. They are the backbone of opportunity, helping people to participate fully in society. By doing this, rail services drive economic growth, strengthen social cohesion and improve health and wellbeing across the country. However, these benefits matter only if everyone can use the network with confidence, which means removing the obstacles that make rail travel challenging or impossible for some people.
Accessibility is not an optional extra—it is fundamental to ensuring that our railways serve every passenger, regardless of their needs. That is not the case at Northwich station today. Since 2013, when the old barrow crossing was removed, passengers have had no step-free way to access the Chester-bound platform, meaning that passengers who cannot use stairs cannot get to it.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about accessibility in train stations. We had a similar issue at Alfreton train station, where, after 20 years of campaigning by Labour councillors, I was fortunate enough to open the new lift, allowing accessibility from one platform to the other, only in July. However, we still have a similar issue at Langley Mill train station, so I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Will he join me in urging the Government to make accessibility at our train stations an absolute priority?
Andrew Cooper
I congratulate my hon. Friend and her councillors on securing that improvement. I agree with her entirely, and I am sure the Minister has heard what she has said.
Passengers in Northwich who cannot use stairs cannot get to the Chester-bound platform. There is no lift and no ramp; there is just a steep footbridge with 41 steps. That means that wheelchair users, people with limited mobility, elderly passengers, parents with prams and anyone with heavy luggage are all put at a disadvantage or, worse, locked out completely. For some, that means missing trains; for others, it means giving up on rail travel altogether. When we talk about building stronger, fairer communities or encouraging greener travel, we have to ensure that our public transport is open to everyone. A railway station that only some of us can use is not truly public transport—it is exclusion by design.
I have spoken with residents who are unable to visit family, attend job interviews or enjoy a simple day out because they cannot use their local station. Local charity Disability Positive has highlighted how disabled passengers are being denied equal access, with one user telling them they had to be driven miles to another station simply to start their journey because Northwich was a no-go. Others are forced to rely on staff-organised taxis to get between stations, turning a simple journey into a logistical headache. While Northern Rail does its best to accommodate passengers, that is not a real solution; it is a workaround for an infrastructure failure. It does not offer dignity or spontaneity—it just underlines the problem.
Let us not forget: this is happening at a station that about 65,000 people live within 5 km of. Northwich is not a minor rural stop—it is a key part of the Mid-Cheshire line. Yet we have a station that in practice serves only part of the population.
What makes this worse is that we had the perfect opportunity to fix it. In 2021, the gable end of the station building collapsed on to the station’s Victorian canopy, causing major disruption and narrowly avoiding killing three people. Part of the station building had to be demolished and rebuilt, and has in fact yet to reopen four and half years later. That should have been the moment to deliver step-free access. The construction teams, plant and equipment were already going to be on site, line possessions were going to be in place and detailed plans had already been prepared as part of the station’s soon-to-be-submitted Access for All application. Cheshire West and Chester council, Northern Rail, Network Rail and local campaigners including the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association were all united behind a proposal and were vocal in their support. The right thing to do—for the Exchequer in long-term saving and for what might be considered adequate compensation to the people of Northwich—was obvious.
Instead, the previous Conservative Government declined to act, simply authorising a like-for-like rebuild, and directed campaigners to Access for All.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
My hon. Friend points to a frustration shared by me and lots of campaigners in Weston-super-Mare, where we have seen missed opportunities over and over again to give people the basic dignity of access in travel. I am pleased that we in Weston join the people of Northwich and Alfreton in trying to get that accessible travel. Does my hon. Friend agree that accessibility must be included by design, right at the very start of any of these processes?
Andrew Cooper
I absolutely agree. If we are going to give people dignity, we have to make sure that we are catering for everybody’s needs.
When the previous Government declined to act in Northwich, a funding application was submitted to the Department for Transport under the Access for All programme. The previous Conservative Government dithered for three years before turning it down just before the general election. A once-in-a-generation chance to build access into the heart of the station was squandered: we put the walls back up and left the barriers in place.
This was not just a missed opportunity to install a lift. It was a chance to show that disabled people matter, that we are serious about inclusion and that public transport is for everyone, and a chance to spend public money more efficiently by combining projects and minimising disruption, and we let it slip through our fingers. The result is that Northwich station remains inaccessible for many people—a neglect made all the more galling by the £99 million underspend on Access for All in Network Rail’s control period 6. Northwich deserves to be part of that progress. It should not be left behind. Every year of delay means more people excluded from rail travel, more opportunities missed and more money wasted on temporary fixes. That is simply unacceptable.
I welcome the Government’s plan to establish Great British Railways and I recognise that structural reform takes time. I also welcome the very recent publication of the road map to an accessible railway, the commitment to end the short-term, stop-start approach to delivering step-free access and the £373 million committed over five years for Access for All projects, which I am sure the Minister will talk more about shortly. This is a significant step forward, and I commend the Government’s genuine commitment to inclusion, but I also say this: warm words are not enough. Funding must follow need, and few stations in the country demonstrate that more clearly than Northwich.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister directly. Will the Department publish the process for how stations will be submitted for consideration for delivering step-free access following the road map’s publication? Will the Minister set out a timescale for when that will occur and when communities can expect the next batch of stations for improvement to be announced? Will he consider Northwich station for inclusion in the next round of Access for All projects, ensuring that stations like ours—overlooked and underserved for too long—are given the priority they deserve? Will he commit to working with Network Rail and train operators to ensure that in future, when rebuilds or refurbishments take place, accessibility improvements are delivered at the same time?
We cannot afford to miss opportunities like that again. We cannot afford to leave communities behind. Accessibility is not just about ramps and lifts; it is about dignity, independence and fairness, and it is time that Northwich had a station that reflects those values. Let us make sure that no one in Northwich is left behind simply because the station was not built with them in mind. Let us put that right. Let us deliver a railway that works for everyone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a privilege to respond to this important debate on accessibility at Northwich station. It is an issue that clearly has a massive impact on the Northwich community and the local travelling public, regardless of their mobility, age or the fact they are travelling with heavy luggage.
Many of Britain’s 2,581 railway stations were constructed before modern accessibility standards were established, making them challenging to navigate for many disabled people. My Department’s recent accessibility audit found that approximately 56% of stations are step-free. It might also be helpful for me to explain that around 66% of the 1.3 billion journeys that take place on the network every year are between those step-free stations. This is significant progress, compared to where the network was just a few years ago, but we still have a long way to go.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and other hon. Members that accessibility is an absolute priority for this Government and, once it is fully established and operational, it will be of critical importance for Great British Railways. We are absolutely committed to delivering accessibility improvements, allowing more people to travel easily, with confidence and with dignity. We also know that the experience for disabled people when travelling on rail too often falls short of what is expected and, frankly, what passengers deserve.
That leads me on to our recently published rail accessibility road map, which ensures that we remain on track to deliver improvements, both to facilities and to the little things that create a better passenger experience. The road map includes a range of tangible actions that will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, access to journey information and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and facilities such as toilets.
Meaningful improvements are being delivered across the railway to improve the accessibility of the network. Through the Access for All programme, we have already delivered step-free access at over 270 stations right across Britain. This has included new lifts and bridges, ramps, tactile paving, improved signage and wayfinding changes that make a real difference to the everyday lives of passengers. Thirty-two station accessibility upgrades have been completed since the beginning of April 2024, with accessibility upgrades at a further five stations planned for completion by the end of March 2026.
Smaller-scale accessibility upgrades have also been completed at more than 1,500 locations, including everything from accessible ticket machines to better lighting, handrails and help points. This is real progress. We are making strides to transform journeys for passengers who previously struggled to use the railway or were unable to use it at all, and we are continuing to invest in station accessibility. As part of the 2025 spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £280 million for Access for All projects over a four-year period.
Now that I have addressed some of the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that we provide adequate accessibility at stations, I will turn to the specific topic of this debate: accessibility at Northwich railway station, in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Mid Chesire. I regret that Northwich station does not offer full step-free access. As he set out in his speech, the Chester-bound platform remains accessible only via a bridge with stairs. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and hugely regrettable in 2025.
In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received, including for Northwich station; indeed, this nomination received strong support from my hon. Friend. The previous Government announced that the initial feasibility work would be undertaken for 50 of these projects, and as my hon. Friend knows, Northwich railway station was not one of the stations announced. Of course, it is not for me to comment on decisions made by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise his disappointment and frustration at that decision.
My hon. Friend spoke clearly and passionately about the gable end of the station building collapsing into the Victorian canopy and the immense disruption that it caused to users of the station. As he observed, this created an opportunity to deliver step-free access at Northwich station. Again, I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration that such an opportunity was not taken under the previous Government.
Let me now respond to some of the specific questions that my hon. Friend put to me. First, he asked whether the Department will publish the process by which stations will be submitted for consideration under future rounds of the Access for All programme. Our recently published rail accessibility road map includes a clear commitment to reform the Access for All programme as part of establishing Great British Railways. As colleagues may know, the Railways Bill recently had its First Reading. As the Bill progresses, we will be able to provide a clear timeline for reforms to the Access for All programme, but the House can be assured of our commitment to transparency and a reformed, more efficient approach to this programme.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Minister is making a compelling case for why the Government are so insistent on making all stations accessible to ensure that everybody has access to public transport. In my home town of Redditch in Worcestershire, the plan for a newly redeveloped station has been cancelled by the local Reform-led council, just when this Government have pledged hundreds of millions of pounds to improve cross-city lines via the midlands rail hub. The plan was to bring the station up to compliant standards for accessibility. Does he share my frustration, and will he urge the county council to think again about the redevelopment plan?
Simon Lightwood
I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s frustration and that of, I suspect, hundreds of his constituents, who will continue to face challenges when using the rail network. We are very much committed to delivering a more accessible rail system, and I am sure he will continue to voice the thoughts of his constituents loud and clear to his local council.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks about the timescale for the next tranche of Access for All stations, which will be announced soon. Network Rail has completed feasibility studies on the 50 stations selected by the previous Government, and in the coming months we will announce which of these will progress.
Linsey Farnsworth
It is very exciting to hear the proposals coming forward from Network Rail. Can the Minister give us some more information on how we local constituency MPs can support our local communities in pushing forward with the campaigns to have our stations included in that? As he heard me say earlier, it took 20 years of campaigning by very committed local Labour councillors in Alfreton town council to get the measures put in place in Alfreton so that everybody can enjoy access to the train station. We still have a train station in Langley Mill, which is much simpler to resolve, but I am told by Network Rail that although it is not against doing improvements there, it depends on footfall. More people would be able to use the train station if it was accessible, but it will not be accessible unless more people use it, so it is a bit of a Catch-22. I would very much welcome advice on that.
Simon Lightwood
We have seen some great examples across the country of where local stations have managed to attract third-party funding. What I am able to do is volunteer the time of the Rail Minister. I will ensure that he reaches out to have a one-on-one conversation with my hon. Friend.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire asks whether Northwich station will be considered for inclusion in the next round of accessibility funding. Given the powerful case that he has made today, I fully expect Northwich to be considered for future rounds of Access for All funding. Indeed, the limitations of the current station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which he set out so clearly today, are exactly the sorts of factors that I expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding.
Finally, my hon. Friend raises an important point about ensuring that when stations are refurbished or rebuilt, accessibility improvements are properly considered for delivery at the same time. I share his disappointment that under the previous Government, opportunities to deliver such improvements at Northwich station were missed. I am happy to commit to my hon. Friend that we will write to the chief executive of Network Rail to ask him to consider whether accessibility is sufficiently embedded in planning and delivery, and how these arrangements can be strengthened further as we move towards the full stand-up of Great British Railways.
During the course of this exchange, we have addressed some of the important issues and considerations around rail accessibility. Drawing on the example of Northwich in my hon. Friend’s constituency, we have discussed missed opportunities under the previous Government to integrate accessibility improvements. Let me finish by reiterating that this Government are absolutely committed to developing a rail network in which accessibility is incorporated from the outset, not just as an afterthought. That is demonstrated by the £280 million of funding that the Chancellor has made available to the Access for All programme through the recent spending review.
I thank my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. I also thank him and other hon. Members for their patience as we continue to move towards a more accessible rail network that works for all passengers.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. A copy of the draft regulations was laid before the House on 21 October.
There are estimated to be around 47,000 people in the UK with Down’s syndrome. Despite existing legal duties and frameworks, those people face real challenges in accessing the care and support they need to live the lives they want to in their own communities. This Government are determined to set that right. Through the implementation of the Down Syndrome Act 2022, aligned with the overarching aims of our 10-year health plan for England, we are striving to improve the life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome by improving their access to services, raising awareness and understanding of their needs, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity that they and other disabled people face. The draft regulations will make a technical but necessary amendment to the Down Syndrome Act to support its effective implementation, and it is right that they should be given full scrutiny in Committee.
I will begin by setting out what the Down Syndrome Act requires. Under the Act, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is required to give guidance to relevant authorities in health, social care, education and housing services on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance, once published. This Government want disabled people’s access to, and experience of, healthcare services to be equitable and effective. The guidance under the Down Syndrome Act supports that aim by raising awareness of, and bringing together in one place, the practical steps that organisations should take to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. It also helps to clarify the support and services that people with Down’s syndrome can expect to receive.
On 5 November, we launched a public consultation on draft guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. Work to develop the draft guidance has involved significant engagement with people with lived experience and, importantly, with the organisations that support them. The consultation presents a further opportunity for people with lived experience and their families to share their views. We expect the guidance to improve support for people with Down’s syndrome and for those with other, similar conditions. In order for the guidance to deliver improvements for those people, it needs to be implemented effectively across the range of communities that it serves.
On 9 May 2023, NHS England published statutory guidance stating that every integrated care board should identify a member of its board to lead on supporting that ICB to perform its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down’s syndrome. The NHS England guidance also states that ICBs should have a lead for learning disability and autism, and a lead for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It will be important for ICB leads to work collaboratively across the integrated care system, with local authority, public health, education and wider partners. The consultation on the draft guidance will help us to understand whether the guidance is clear, informative and useful to relevant authorities in carrying out their legislative requirements in support of people with Down’s syndrome. We will use the feedback received to ensure the guidance is fit for purpose.
I now turn to what the draft regulations will do. Under the Down Syndrome Act, relevant authorities must have due regard to the final statutory guidance when exercising their relevant functions. The Act does not create any functions beyond that duty. The schedule to the Act specifies the relevant authorities that must have due regard to the guidance and the specific functions of those bodies to which the guidance applies. As drafted, the schedule does not include NHS England or ICBs. Rather, it refers to the National Health Service Commissioning Board, which was the former name of NHS England, and to clinical commissioning groups, which were the commissioning bodies in place at the time the Down Syndrome Act was passed.
These draft regulations seek to bring the legislation up to date by replacing references to CCGs with ICBs, and references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board with NHS England. The changes are required because the Health and Social Care Act 2022 made provision for the abolition of CCGs and replaced them with ICBs, and renamed the National Health Service Commissioning Board as NHS England. The purpose of that change is to bring ICBs and NHS England within scope of the Down Syndrome Act duty to have due regard to the guidance.
Final guidance issued under the Down Syndrome Act will not be published until these changes come into force. We intend to publish the guidance before the planned abolition of NHS England comes into effect. We understand that the ongoing reforms across Government affect the timing and content of the final guidance, and its content after publication. We will keep the final guidance under review, and it will be updated to reflect the latest policy and legislative frameworks as and when necessary.
The Down’s syndrome guidance will not be statutory for those not specified in the schedule to the Down Syndrome Act, which means that persons who are not relevant authorities are under no obligation to have due regard to the guidance. It is therefore important that we change the wording in the Down Syndrome Act now to ensure that the guidance will apply to current relevant authorities. The change will also ensure that the legislation is in alignment with NHS England’s statutory guidance on the ICB leads on Down’s syndrome. ICB leads are responsible for the implementation of the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. It is therefore critical that they are referenced in the legislation itself.
The regulations will come into force on the day after the date on which they are made. The rationale is to ensure that the duty under the Down Syndrome Act to give guidance to relevant authorities applies to the correct authorities. The regulations will have no material effect until the final guidance is published. We therefore do not believe it necessary to engage with or notify the public further on these changes.
By making important updates to the Down Syndrome Act, these regulations will provide vital assurance that the guidance will be implemented effectively, ensuring that it can achieve the aim of improving the life outcomes of those with Down’s syndrome. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure it will delight the Committee to know that I do not intend to detain us for too long. [Interruption.] I always get a cheer when I say that. I would like to begin by saying that I do not see anything particularly contentious in this. The Minister rightly points out that these are technical changes that bring the Down Syndrome Act into line with the reforms introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022, in particular the replacement of CCGs with ICBs and the renaming of the NHS Commissioning Board as NHS England.
However, it is worth questioning the Government on the longer-term stability of these changes. As hon. Members will know, the Government have stated their intention to abolish NHS England by April 2027. That process has already been delayed, reportedly due to uncertainty over who will meet the redundancy costs for staff within those organisations. If that abolishment proceeds, a new health Bill will be required. At present, we do not know when that Bill will be brought forward or what it will contain. It is therefore entirely possible that the statutory references being updated today will need to be amended again in the near future.
I also note that there is no statutory review clause in this instrument. While that may be understandable given the technical nature of the changes, it adds to concerns that further legislative changes may not be properly anticipated or subject to adequate scrutiny in good time.
While I support these draft regulations, I urge the Minister to clarify what transitional arrangements are being considered for the functions currently held by NHS England and the integrated care boards. That is especially important, as he rightly pointed out, for the consistency of support that we all want to see in the context of the Down Syndrome Act. We must ensure that people with Down’s syndrome are not adversely affected by any ongoing organisational changes within the health system. The Minister mentioned some of the updates to the Down Syndrome Act. Perhaps he could update us further on any other actions that are ongoing. How many still need to be done?
In addition, I note that the Act seems to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance, on which the Government have just launched a consultation. One of the criticisms of the Act at the time was that it is specific to Down’s syndrome. Although I obviously welcome that focus, others face similar disabilities and challenges. How might the Government support them?
Finally, it looks like people can respond to the guidance only online. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he is confident that those who are digitally excluded will not be prevented from taking part in this important consultation?
Dr Ahmed
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing the consensus on the Down Syndrome Act. It should be placed on record that the Act was a private Member’s Bill sponsored by Sir Liam Fox, then a Conservative Member. I am delighted to carry forward the draft regulations on the basis of that consensus.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what these statutory instruments will look like in relation to future iterations of NHS governance structures. As he said, NHS England will continue to undertake the statutory functions until parliamentary time allows for legislative changes. I am confident that the Down Syndrome Act and Acts like it will be components of the primary legislation that will be required to make those new arrangements, such that we will not require this type of Delegated Legislation Committee process again.
I will take back the question about digital access to the consultation process to my officials. The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point on exclusion, of which I am also very cognisant. I am happy to write to him with a fuller answer.
Again, I am grateful for the consensus on both sides of the Committee. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. The purpose of the statutory instrument is simple: to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-Iraq partnership and co-operation agreement and the UK-Kazakhstan strategic partnership and co-operation agreement. Both agreements are part of the UK’s ongoing continuity trade programme following our exit from the EU.
As the Committee will know, the UK’s trade continuity programme aimed to replicate existing EU trade agreements where possible after the UK left the EU. The goal was to ensure businesses, consumers and investors maintained stability and access to benefits such as preferential tariffs. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA are two of the last remaining trade agreements to be updated, and the SI implements the procurement chapters of them.
Before I cover the procurement chapter commitments in some detail, I want to provide the House with more background on the two agreements. The UK-Iraq PCA and the UK-Kazakhstan SPCA establish frameworks to govern our trade and economic relationship with Iraq and Kazakhstan. They will strengthen our co-operation across a range of priority areas and signal our commitment to two strategically important partners.
The UK-Iraq PCA was signed during Prime Minister al-Sudani’s visit to the UK in January this year. During that visit, both Prime Ministers announced a trade package worth over £12 billion. That package, when fully delivered, will represent a tenfold increase compared with our current annual trade. The UK has therefore started a new chapter in our relationship with Iraq, and the PCA will deepen our bilateral relationship across a wide range of sectors including, but not limited to: energy, transport, scientific research, education and culture, as well as counter-terrorism and arms controls.
The UK-Kazakhstan SPCA, which was signed in April 2024 by the previous Government, provides a framework for political dialogue and deeper co-operation on trade, security, climate, education and culture. The agreement goes further than existing World Trade Organisation arrangements on the provision of services, creating more favourable conditions on the establishment of cross-border supply. It also exceeds Kazakhstan’s current WTO commitments on global procurement, aligning them to the WTO Government procurement agreement, to which Kazakhstan is currently in the process of acceding.
The treaty is a substantial indication of the UK’s commitment to strategic political and economic co-operation with Kazakhstan, and it confirms our long-standing shared interests. UK businesses have traded with Kazakhstan since its independence in 1991 in areas such as minerals, education and architecture. The agreement will deepen those links. The text of the SPCA also makes important and specific references to bilateral dialogue on human rights, labour relations and gender equality.
It is important to note that the procurement chapters of the agreements broadly replicate the standards and market access commitments of the original EU agreements before our exit from the EU. Some of the language has been tweaked to better reflect the specific bilateral context between the UK and the two countries today. A key distinction between the Iraqi and Kazakh agreements is that the procurement market access commitments in the SPCA can considered broadly equivalent to that of the WTO GPA. However, the market access levels in the Iraq PCA are lower than that as they only include access to central Government entities.
As part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process to enable parliamentary scrutiny, both agreements were laid in Parliament on 9 July. The agreements cleared the CRaG scrutiny process on 16 October, and this SI was subsequently laid on 21 October. The procurement chapters of the agreements can only take effect once the agreements have implemented in domestic legislation. The SI will achieve that by updating schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 to implement in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations under both agreements. Through the addition of the agreements to schedule 9, suppliers entitled to benefit from them will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Procurement Act. That will provide them with access and rights in UK public procurement equal to that afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreements require Iraq and Kazakhstan to provide equivalent access for UK suppliers. The Procurement Act regulations are being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under both agreements apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime.
The territorial extent of this instrument is UK wide. The territorial application of the instrument in relation to contracts under the Procurement Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. The same extends to Scotland, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The same extends to Wales, but not in respect of procurement regulated by Welsh Ministers. Therefore, the Welsh Government will make a separate SI to implement the agreements in respect of procurements regulated by Welsh Ministers, and the Scottish Government will implement the agreements separately, under their own legislation, in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority. The territorial application of this instrument in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the statutory instrument, which helps to update and strengthen our relationship with both Iraq and Kazakhstan.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. His Majesty’s official Opposition support them. Having, as the Minister said, concluded one agreement and very much supporting the second one, which really continues the international trade policy and trend of the previous Government, we certainly will not be dividing the Committee, but perhaps he can just set out the answers to a few questions about some details in the regulations.
If we look at the particular regulation that underpins a lot of the regulation set out here, it generally appears quite technical, particularly in relation to definitions and cross-references. Will the Minister therefore confirm that these measures do not constitute a material policy shift and that the Government have assessed that the changes do not create any unintended consequences for contracting authorities or potential bidders?
On potential bidders, how do the Government intend any changes within the regulations to be communicated to suppliers and potential suppliers based in the UK? When will any updated guidance following from the regulations be published? We are particularly concerned about any impact—not that we expect there to be any dramatic impact—on small and medium-sized enterprises or small employers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that SMEs and microbusinesses in particular can navigate without an increased administrative burden any transition in the procurement systems covered by the regulations? Have stakeholders been consulted on whether further clarity is required, particularly for SMEs, charities and the voluntary sector suppliers that may be affected?
The regulations are technical, but of course they are important for the integrity of the procurement system, so clarity and consistency remain essential both for contracting authorities and for the many businesses—especially smaller suppliers—that rely on predictable and understandable rules. Therefore, I look forward to the Minister’s responses and to ensuring that these amendments support a smooth and proportionate transition to the new procurement regime as it relates to Kazakhstan and Iraq. There is little further for me to say. We will be supporting the regulations.
Chris Ward
I was rather expecting some further contributions, but there we go—I can see what the time is. I welcome the continuing cross-party support on this matter across the Committee. As the hon. Gentleman said, much of this work—particularly on the Kazakhstan agreement—was started under the previous Government.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. We do not expect there to be a material policy change. As I said, the regulations replicate much of where we were pre-EU exit. There are some technical tweaks, but, to his point, there is no material change. On additional burdens on business, which he also mentioned, we do not expect there to be a significant impact from the regulations because the underpinning framework is not being substantially amended; these really are technical changes.
On SMEs, as I said, we do not expect huge changes, but once the regulations are agreed to formally by the House, updated guidance will be published to inform SMEs, affected people and suppliers looking to trade into Kazakhstan and Iraq and vice versa. More broadly, the Government have a big programme of work to try to improve support for SMEs in the procurement regime. Some really important progress was made on that in the Procurement Act—there is cross-party agreement here—but we are looking to go much further and ensure that the public procurement budget of almost £400 billion a year does everything it can to support SMEs. We will look to do that going forward, but we do not expect there to be material change from the regulations. I think that covers all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The implementation of the regulations will be a key step in formalising our relationship with both countries, with mutual benefits on both sides. We are committed to enhancing our relationship with Kazakhstan and with Iraq. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
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
Specialist Manufacturing Sector: Regional Economies
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and a privilege to open this debate on the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies. The number of colleagues who have joined us this early on a Wednesday morning is a mark of just how important this issue is to so many constituencies.
Manufacturing is the backbone of our economy. This country is unique. We do not mass-produce rubbish; we make specialist things that only our foundries and factories can produce. Decent manufacturing brings good jobs but also economic power to our country. Manufacturing contributed £217 billion in output to the economy last year—nearly 10% of GDP—and supported 2.6 million jobs.
Calder Valley has manufacturing in its history. The story started with wool, but has developed into chemicals and specialist manufacturing. As new businesses opened in old mills, we also focused on particular industries. Calder Valley has long been known for its engineering. We are home to what many call valve valley, a cluster of more than 20 firms that design, build and service valves that are used across the world. In the valve community, which I mainly discovered after becoming an MP, Brighouse and Elland are central hubs. These companies are not household names, but they are businesses that keep industry moving, from energy to water to pharmaceuticals. They employ local people, train apprentices and anchor our economy in towns that too often feel overlooked.
When I visit manufacturing and engineering firms in Calder Valley, I see the same thing again and again: highly skilled workers who are proud of the worldwide reach of their products, from 60% of water in New York city travelling through valves made in Brighouse to oil rigs in the North sea being made safer because of the expertise of workers in a West Yorkshire factory. I see innovation, with companies investing in new technology and tapping into various sectors such as defence, renewables and nuclear. I see resilience, because these businesses have survived downturns and global shocks, yet they continue to provide good jobs in Calder Valley.
But we cannot ignore the fact that the numbers working in manufacturing are falling. As of 2024, 15% of jobs in Calder Valley are in the manufacturing sector, compared with a national average of 7%, but that share has been declining. In 2007, just under a quarter of jobs in Calder Valley were in manufacturing. From the financial crisis to Brexit and the Tories’ disastrous deal, the past couple of decades have ripped the heart out of our manufacturing industry.
We will hear a lot in the next few weeks about growth and so forth. It will come as a relief to many Members that I am not in the Treasury, so rather than talking about statistics, I will share what local manufacturers tell me. They tell me that their order book has never been so bad, because of the impact of tariffs. The lack of stability means companies are not making long-term decisions that would see them step up. That is why we need a strong domestic manufacturing sector, but it is also why we need to be strategic in our support for the industry and how we spend our money on the infrastructure that we need to rebuild.
If we are serious about Labour’s promise that two thirds of young people will go to university or achieve a high-level qualification, this is exactly the kind of work we need to encourage. We need to make sure that those qualifications are linked to opportunities in advanced manufacturing, engineering and design. That means working with local authorities and businesses to understand the needs of industry in each region.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about training and upskilling, does he agree that we need to do more to develop the skills and competitiveness of our manufacturing base, and that that needs to spread beyond the large cities so that smaller towns and their residents can benefit?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The point about smaller towns is so important, because as well as creating brilliant jobs in the smaller economy where they will make a difference, they give a sense of place and value to what we produce. People are proud of what their town produces, whether it is valves or textiles, and they think of those things as defining their town. That commitment is something that only a small town can offer, and it really makes a difference.
Businesses in this country are ready to grow, but they need support with skills, infrastructure and investment. They need to know that their order book is guaranteed for the long term. The Government have made really positive noises about encouraging skilled apprenticeships; that is welcome, but apprenticeships work only if the companies can afford to hire and train young people. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized manufacturers, which are the lifeblood of Calder Valley and other small towns, have the support that they need to take on apprenticeships without being too financially stretched.
In September, I visited the Brighouse-based training charity West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services, as part of National Manufacturing Day. It showcased a range of firms in Calder Valley to school students. I also met Stuart Billingham, who is set to become the managing director of KOSO Kent Introl next year. The company, founded in Brighouse, employs about 150 people and exports specialist valves across the world. Stuart started at 16 on a youth training scheme and has worked his way up the company to become its managing director. His journey is a brilliant example of how skills and apprenticeships can lead to as rewarding, lucrative and challenging a career, with as massive a global impact, as we are often told that universities can. It shows that those careers have progression and responsibility. I want this Government to produce 1,000 Stuarts, albeit that some of his close friends might not want that many Stuarts.
At that event, there was so much interest from young people and so much curiosity about the opportunities that a career in manufacturing could bring. That spark of curiosity must be nurtured into a flame of ambition, especially at a time when too many young people feel pressured into pursuing degrees that may not suit them or lead to secure employment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I praise my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. On apprenticeships, I wonder whether he would care to comment on the excellent work of the Catapult centres, which are Government-funded and which work collectively between business and academia. In my constituency of Rugby, at Ansty Park, we have the Manufacturing Technology Centre, which has its own training facility. It has already trained 1,200 apprentices. That can only be a good thing for our region, and particularly for our young people who want to get on and get jobs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Yes, 1,200 apprenticeships is 1,200 decent jobs and 1,200 families who have pride that their son or daughter will make a real difference and make products that make it around the world. That is why this matters.
Only 14% of apprenticeships that started in the past academic year were in engineering and manufacturing, however. The Institution of Engineering and Technology has reported that engineering faces one of the largest skills shortfalls in the economy, with more than 46,000 vacancies in the sector. Similarly, the welding industry needs 35,000 more people. That is the key to growth. It represents a real opportunity to support young people into secure, well-paid work. Without it, our manufacturing sector will be in trouble.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I encourage him to go one step upstream and look at some of the wider policy context? If we are to regrow our manufacturing base, as we absolutely need to, we have to accept that it will be about future technologies, not just replacing what we had in the past. In my constituency, the development of tidal energy offers a supply chain of 80% UK product, which would then be exportable. If we could capture that, we would have something special—but for that to happen, we need a better policy framework to come out of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
We have to be really bold. We need to look at our future-focused industries and at what we specialise in. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tidal energy, but we will not be able to produce that without a load of specialist valves. I want to ensure that they are built in Calder Valley and go throughout the country. That is what this debate is about: we need to plan and think, but we also need to look at what we do well.
The imbalance between small and large manufacturing companies is accentuated by the fact that larger companies often secure Government contracts, particularly in defence. Not only does that provide them with guaranteed revenue, but it often allows them to poach skilled staff from smaller firms that cannot compete with the salaries and the security that those contracts bring. Yorkshire and the Humber received the least defence spending per person, despite the fact that across our region we have a manufacturing sector that is eager to grow and develop.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. As he knows, the south-west has a brilliant, large defence-related manufacturing sector. Needles and Pins Aerospace is a small, women-led business based in Somerton that provides precision textile engineering for aviation and defence. It should be entitled to the same opportunities to compete on a level playing field for the larger contracts. Does he agree that if the Government are prioritising value and security, they should offer equal commercial opportunities to UK businesses and supply chains in respect of defence and security-related manufacturing contracts?
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I absolutely agree. The Defence Office for Small Business Growth—I believe it will open in January, but the Minister will know better than me—will be a great opportunity to grow businesses such as Needles and Pins Aerospace in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the many businesses in my constituency that want to get into the defence industry. She is right that the south-east does very well out of defence. In fact, the defence industry supports 85,000 direct jobs in the south of England, but just 3,750 in Yorkshire and the Humber.
As part of the Government’s mission to make defence an engine for growth, there should be a concerted effort to spread its benefits across the regions and our small towns, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. We will grow this economy only if the Government interact with industry, including in Calder Valley and West Yorkshire, in a way that encourages competition rather than dominance. Smaller manufacturers are equally vital and are a sign of a balanced and resilient economy. They must be supported if we are serious about building the balanced and resilient industrial base that we really need.
Valve manufacturing is a reminder that regional economies thrive when we back specialist sectors. It is not about chasing the latest fad; it is about recognising and building on our strengths. In Calder Valley, that means supporting our manufacturers with a skills pipeline, and with the apprenticeships and investment that they need to grow. We can use the power of the public purse to do that, but—I will be honest—we have failed to do that over multiple years and multiple Governments. The new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point has more than 100,000 valves, but they are all made in China. The only company in Calder Valley that has benefited is the company that fixes faulty valves, because the quality is not as good as that of British-made valves. If we expect other countries to use our high-quality valves in manufacturing, our Government must lead by example.
This is about the pride that people feel when they know that something they made in their town is used in projects around the world. It is about the contribution that specialist manufacturing makes to identity as well as GDP. It is about ensuring that places such as Calder Valley are not left behind, but are recognised as central to Britain’s industrial future.
I will finish by making a few points directly to the Minister. In Calder Valley, we know how vital apprenticeships are, yet only 14% of apprenticeships last year were in engineering and manufacturing; what will the Government do to ensure that new training opportunities match the skills shortages that we face, such as those in welding and advanced engineering? Our small and medium-sized manufacturers are the lifeblood of towns such as Brighouse; how will Government support for apprenticeships and investment reach those firms rather than being skewed towards the largest players? Defence strategic procurement could be a real engine for growth in places such as Calder Valley; will the Minister set out how contracts will be used to back British industry, particularly in specialist sectors such as valve manufacturing and precision engineering?
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to speak in the debate. I will impose an informal time limit of five minutes to allow all Members to get in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me early, Mrs Harris; you are very kind. I am sure hon. Members are wondering why. I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing today’s debate. In his short year and a half in the House, he has shown himself to be assiduous on behalf of his constituents. He works hard, with a key focus on the subjects he brings to the House, both in the main Chamber and here. Well done to him.
Our manufacturing sector is crucial to the UK-wide economy. We must not forget the unique build-up of this country. I always say that we are better together, and there is no Scots Nats person here to tell me otherwise—not that that is a bad thing, but anyway. Whether it be Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, we can do it better, with a significant contribution to the manufacturing industry.
Library research highlights that in 2023, Northern Ireland added £2.2 billion gross value added in manufacturing economic output. In 2024, around 900 direct jobs were supported by the defence industry. Defence plays a crucial role in Northern Ireland, but it does not get its full percentage of defence contracts. I gently put that point to the Minister to get a helpful answer. The defence sector should get more contracts, although there have been lots of commitments.
With great respect, Northern Ireland people—men and women—have proven themselves as leaders in their contribution to the sector. The best is yet to come, with more young people becoming interested in all aspects of manufacturing and engineering. There is a keen interest in science, technology, engineering and maths study and employment in Northern Ireland, especially from young people and from women who have leading roles in manufacture. We are doing and seeing good things happening; we see equality and opportunity.
This is a good news story. Northern Ireland is home to major companies such as Thales and Bombardier. Bombardier at one stage had two major factories in Newtownards, hiring hundreds of people from the local area, showing our skill in the design and manufacture of composites and polymers. I usually visit Thales at least once a year with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who told me that the majority of the workforce live in my constituency of Strangford, so it is obviously to my advantage to be there.
The good news with Thales is that, with Government help, 200 new jobs have been created there. There are also important apprenticeship opportunities. Given my age, I have known some of the young fellows there since they were born. Aged 18, 19 or 20, they now have jobs at Thales, with fantastic opportunities, a good wage and help with their student fees. I have met unions on various occasions to hear their concerns, and have brought this issue to the Floor of the House to seek assurances.
There are some things I ask of the Minister. It would not be right to take part in this debate without highlighting the risks in the manufacturing industry relating to job security. At times like these, the Government are able to step in. That is my Great British Government, and everybody’s Government, whether we voted for them or not. On this occasion, efforts fell short in committing to the manufacturing industry in the way we wanted. I will mention Spirit AeroSystems, the plane manufacturer, and the contribution made by Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland may be a small nation, but we are mighty—a word not often used—just like small David, who took on big Goliath in the Bible and beat him.
Alongside Scotland, Wales and the mainland, specialist manufacturing is crucial to economic prosperity. There must be an unwavering determination to achieve that. I ask the Minister to engage with me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and other Northern Ireland MPs to ensure that, when it comes to helping each other, to make this great United Kingdom of Great Britain even greater and better, we do that together. It takes that commitment. Will the Minister work alongside a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister, the Assembly and us to deliver for everyone?
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate and for his call for the use of British parts in British infrastructure.
The debate is incredibly pertinent to my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and to neighbouring areas across north Staffordshire, and unsurprisingly my colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent are here with me today. Ours is a post-industrial city and, typically for the coalfield and other regions across the north and midlands, we have lagged behind others in wage growth and investment. Although we rightly take pride in our industrial past and heritage, we must also look with ambition to our future. North Staffordshire is the home of the British ceramics industry, and we are incredibly lucky to have manufacturing specialisms in advanced ceramics, which form part of the supply chains for critical industries and the IS-8—the eight sectors identified in the industrial strategy.
Without ceramics, we cannot have steel, glass or mobile phones. The industrial strategy rightly recognised ceramics as a foundational industry, and I am delighted that the national materials innovation strategy, championed by the Henry Royce Institute, recognises the importance of ceramics as critical materials. Ceramic materials are used in specialist components for high-tech industries, and I will name just a few. They are used in implants and prosthetics in the healthcare sector and as jet engine coatings for civil and defence aerospace. They are used in fuel cells for small modular reactors and in defence applications including rocket components, antennas, surveillance and armour. In fact, they are the only class of materials capable of enabling hypersonic weapons for defence.
North Staffordshire’s advanced ceramics industry is therefore a cornerstone of the UK defence capability. We have a well-established cluster for advanced ceramics in our region, with established companies and research consultancies. That includes Mantec, Ross Ceramics and Lucideon. Lastly, north Staffordshire is incredibly lucky to have AMRICC—the Applied Materials Research, Innovation and Commercialisation Company, which is the Government-funded centre of excellence for advanced ceramics.
The global ceramics market was valued at £200 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach £358 billion by 2035. Advanced ceramics account for 54% of that market, with the UK holding a share worth £4.5 billion, so the opportunity for growth here is clear. I must stress, however, that advanced ceramics are only part of the advanced manufacturing specialisms in our part of the country. The west midlands has the UK’s second highest number of advanced manufacturing jobs and contributes 6.7% of total GVA. In my constituency, the engineering manufacturer Goodwin produces materials for submarines, aeroplanes and advanced surveillance systems.
Key to the potential for growth is the A50/A500 growth corridor, the nexus of which is in Sideway in my constituency. It is the key connector between Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Along the A50/A500 growth corridor are world-renowned advanced manufacturing companies, including Bentley, JCB and Toyota. That growth corridor connects more than 1 million people and 500,000 jobs in clean energy, hydrogen and technology. If we extend to Nottingham, it connects three university city regions, and if we use the East Midlands rail line, it will take us all the way to Lincolnshire.
Midlands Connect has estimated that the A50/A500 project, along with the building of more houses, will generate more than £12 billion in GVA, could create up to 39,000 new jobs—an unbelievable number—by 2045, and has a projected annual growth rate of 1.6% until 2070. He will tell me off for doing this, but I am going to quote the chief executive of Stoke-on-Trent city council. He said to me that it “could deliver a greater bang for its buck than the northern powerhouse.”
The project requires £3 million to develop the business case. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to support the project and development of the business case. The economic benefits from the project would link manufacturers in north Staffordshire to the east midlands, with strong implications for devolution and economic growth across the regions. I believe that it might be worth considering a north midlands strategic authority to unlock those benefits further, as the corridor is a critical supply chain and distribution artery for businesses to the east and west and, indeed, the north and south, because it connects the M1 and M6.
There is an incredible amount of specialist manufacturing in our regional economy, particularly in the advanced ceramics sector. With the right investment in innovation, infrastructure and skills, the north midlands advanced manufacturing corridor could become a leading growth hub for our regional economy and the UK economy more broadly.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I welcome today’s debate. Plymouth and the surrounding area boast some of the finest examples of British advanced manufacturing. Babcock refits the Royal Navy’s frigates, maintains our nuclear deterrent and assembles the Supacat Jackal armoured vehicles at His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport. Today, Helsing is opening a resilience factory in my constituency, manufacturing autonomous underwater gliders to protect critical infrastructure. The date was supposed to be last week, so I went to visit. Unfortunately, I am here for this debate today rather than there for the official opening today, but it is an exciting opportunity for my constituency of South West Devon and Plymouth as a whole. The company was attracted to the city because of its easy access to deep water for testing and sea trials of marine autonomy. For similar reasons, Thales at Turnchapel Wharf is delivering the first end-to-end autonomous maritime mine-hunting system to the Royal Navy.
Plymouth’s industry is not just defence companies equipping the men and women in uniform with world-class kit. Mars Wrigley, a company I visited last month, manufactures its chewing gum in Plymouth. Alderman Tooling, another advanced manufacturer in Plympton in my constituency, is a metal fabrication company that produces a range of products, including metal bed feet, bus handrails and displays for museums and fashion retailers. Plessey Semiconductors, Demon Pressure Washers and Princess Yachts are all significant to South West Devon, and many other businesses manufacture in neighbouring Plymouth constituencies.
It should therefore come as no surprise that Plymouth wears the crown as the south-west’s pre-eminent manufacturing city, ranking ninth across the UK. This is within the south-west region, which has the third highest proportion of advanced manufacturing jobs in the country, employing 86,500 people. Indeed, the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group represents over 50 local businesses right across the city, employing almost 5,500 people.
With the current focus on the defence sector across the country and in Plymouth, it is easy to just focus on the prime companies: Babcock, BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. However, it is important to also recognise the immense contribution of small and medium-sized businesses to the advanced manufacturing sector—both the defence supply chain and the wider manufacturing sector that populates Plymouth and the surrounding area.
Plymouth’s regeneration is being led by manufacturers, small and large, in our city. Our city’s future success is tied to theirs. The city’s offer is impressive and often overlooked. Our advanced manufacturing sector contributes hundreds of millions of pounds of GVA to the local economy and the country as a whole. Defence in the south-west adds £3.6 billion of GVA, with 43,500 jobs. However, it is well documented that Plymouth has a skills shortage. This in turn risks local growth, social cohesion and cost increases to the defence programme. To unlock Plymouth’s potential, we must meet those challenges head-on.
Recent data has highlighted that as many apprenticeships are needed by local SMEs as by defence primes—something we must be alive to as we promote our manufacturing sector and the skilled employees required. That is especially the case since high wage inflation—something already mentioned—brought about by the demands from the defence primes can impact those critical SMEs that also provide significant numbers of jobs and need to grow their skilled workforce, too.
We are not alone in this reality in the south-west. Recent Transport Committee hearings that I was part of have focused on the skills shortage in transport manufacturing, too. We often hear about welding, but ultimately those welders are needed right across the country in a whole range of jobs. It is very important we ensure that that supply and demand match each other. I am particularly interested to hear how the Minister can address that, because I sit in those meetings hearing about the need for welders, and I am not convinced that there are enough young people out there to fill those jobs, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The need for a laser focus on skills is crucial, and a reality check is needed on the numbers required across all manufacturing sectors to ensure we tackle the demand effectively.
Although I welcome the Government’s defence spending and commitment to Plymouth, I am watching to ensure that their investment also addresses the broader systemic challenges I outlined facing Plymouth’s advanced manufacturing sector. Labour has pursued policies that actively harm our SMEs. The jobs tax is costing small businesses £615 more a year per employee, and the Employment Rights Bill is tying them up in red tape. I hope that the Chancellor is taking a second look at the harm that those policies are causing to small businesses ahead of the Budget next week.
Plymouth is an exciting place to set up a business, with the Plymouth and South Devon freeport providing incentives and a skilled workforce that is growing every day, even with the challenges I have mentioned, all in the most beautiful place in the country to live. It is clearly the place to be to invest and to seek those jobs. My hope is that the Government will help and not hinder the city’s potential.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. We do not talk nearly enough about manufacturing in this place—I am sure the Minister would agree with that, given his personal commitment and understanding of the sector from his previous role.
I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). I am sure that parts made in my constituency, at Meighs & Westleys, Goodwin or Mantec, make their way down to her local businesses, but I say gently to her that scaremongering about the Employment Rights Bill is a disincentive to industry and a restriction on our economy. The Bill is not yet anywhere near implementation.
Gareth Snell
Very briefly, as long as the hon. Lady is going to admit that she is wrong.
Rebecca Smith
I am not going to do that. Many businesspeople across my constituency have contacted me to stress how damaging the Bill will be. It seems to be more of an ideological issue on which Opposition Members differ. The red tape, particularly around things like zero-hours contracts, will have a massive impact, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
Gareth Snell
I am many things, but I have never been called an ideologue. We can have a debate about the Employment Rights Bill on a different occasion, but I suggest that securing the right for people to know what hours they are working does not seem to me like a minimum ask for anybody.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley raised the importance of manufacturing to pride in place. He rightly talked about the valves made in Calder Valley, and he will know that I and my colleagues from north Staffordshire talk quite a lot in this place about ceramics and pottery—I cannot imagine your disbelief, Mrs Harris, but it is true. We talk about that because we are proud of the things that we make. We are proud to know that the tableware in our dining rooms was made by Duchess in Stoke-on-Trent, and the gifts in the Lords gift shop were made by Halcyon Days in Stoke-on-Trent. There are Wedgwood plates, Spode mugs and Burleigh prints all around this building that were made in Stoke-on-Trent.
It is not just Stoke-on-Trent that has a unique commitment and an integral identity connection to manufacturing. Think about the cutlery manufacturers of Sheffield, the jewellery quarter in Birmingham, the shoe manufacturers of Northampton, the knitwear and textiles in Scotland and, of course, the shipyards of Barrow and Belfast—clear commitments to industry that have helped to shape people’s identity. That is why we have to think about what regional investment means. We are proud of the things we make: they contribute to our local economy, which therefore contributes to the national economy. The supply chains need to stretch right across the whole United Kingdom because, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, this is about the nations and regions of this country coming together to do what we all do best in our localities for the greater good of the nation.
In Stoke-on-Trent we do not just make tableware, giftware and ceramics; it is also proudly home to a factory that makes all the cherry bakewells in this country. I did not know she was here this morning, but one of our guests in the Public Gallery works in that factory. The workers there are proud of what they do and their creation of pastry, frangipane, icing and hand-placed cherries.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Did the hon. Gentleman bring any with him?
Gareth Snell
No—but those workers know how they contribute to our national economy.
When manufacturing, pride in place and identity overlap, that is something to be celebrated, because it drives innovation. Hannah Ault of Valentine Clays in Stoke-on-Trent is incredibly proud of the work she does. She is formulating a new clay that can be baked at a lower temperature for a shorter period of time, because she has an intense connection to the ceramic sector and the use of such skills. That research and development would not ordinarily happen; it happens because of her connection to a place and the support she can give to a sector that still has things to make.
I want to press the Minister on two points. First, on procurement, it is a travesty that only a third of the cars in the Government Car Service are made by British manufacturers. The proportion is even less for police cars purchased in this country. We have bus manufacturers, train manufacturers and brick manufacturers in this country, all of which make wonderful products, yet we import products from other parts of the world. Local and regional manufacturers can make them at better quality and lower cost if we give them the opportunity, but to do that the Minister—he knows what I am about to say—has to get a grip on industrial energy costs, which I know he is doing.
Small manufacturers in this country face some of the highest industrial electricity prices anywhere in the world, and although our gas prices are relatively competitive with Europe, they are much higher than they were two or three years ago. Small manufacturers need help with export finance to ensure that they can go to trade shows and exhibitions. We also have to get a grip on skills; it is brilliant that T-levels are coming online, but they have to come online quicker.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate, and not least for mentioning one of the many shocking things about Hinkley C in my constituency.
My Tiverton and Minehead constituency is home to some truly remarkable specialist manufacturers whose contributions extend far beyond our borders and into the global economy. I have chosen to confine my speech to just three examples—so apologies to HepcoMotion, Rotolok and others.
Heathcoat Fabrics is a shining example. Founded by John Heathcoat, it has a storied past. After the factory in the midlands was destroyed by the Luddites, Heathcoat led his workforce to the south-west and established a major lace-making enterprise in Tiverton in 1816. Ahead of his time and a thoroughly righteous man, not only did he build a thriving business, but he invested in the welfare of his workers, building a series of cottages for them. The homes are, of course, still standing, and are well lived in by Tivertonians today.
The company carried forward Heathcoat’s vision and ethos of worker welfare, providing pensions to employees before Lloyd George’s Old Age Pensions Act 1908. Today, Heathcoat Fabrics designs specialist fabrics that are trusted by NASA for its space missions. I say that again: trusted by NASA. Enough said—wow. It is quite the distinction, and a testament to Heathcoat Fabrics’ world-class innovation.
Impressive, too, is Shearwell Data, a family-run business based in Wheddon Cross, Somerset. Under the leadership of director Richard Webber, Shearwell has become a global leader in livestock-monitoring systems. Its technology supports farmers worldwide and is backed by advanced data storage and a remote support network that stretches across continents. Agriculture is a way of life in our part of the world, and Shearwell’s success puts Somerset firmly on the map in conversations about agricultural innovation.
I also want to mention Singer Instruments, which is based in Roadwater, in Watchet. Its precision instrumentation accelerates scientific discovery, supporting and supplying labs in more than 60 countries and in every corner of the globe. It is a source of great local pride to know that such cutting-edge science is powered by a company rooted in the constituency.
Although it is not in my constituency—it is just over the border—it would be remiss of me not to mention Agratas, Tata’s global battery arm, which is building the UK’s largest electric vehicle battery factory. Once fully operational, it is projected to generate more than £700 million annually for the south-west economy, and will be a significant employer, with around 4,000 people across the full site—opportunities for talented constituents of mine.
All those enterprises form the backbone of a flourishing hub of specialist manufacturing. They demonstrate how innovation, resilience and a healthy dose of ambition can drive prosperity for our communities and contribute to the wider south-west regional economy.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate, and echo his calls to buy British.
As the first seaside resort in Britain, Scarborough pioneered bathing machines for women—horse-drawn sheds on wheels—who entered the ocean clad in vast garments, helped by servants. In those days, it was all about protecting modesty, but today the innovators in Scarborough are, thankfully, all about protecting the environment, as we move to net zero and tackle the climate crisis.
Local business SeaGrown has created the Kelpedo, which is an innovative and robust offshore seaweed cultivation system. The small cylinder is literally fired from boats into the sea like a mini-torpedo. More than just a structure for growing seaweed, each Kelpedo unit actively contributes to ocean health by sequestering carbon, improving water quality and creating vital habitats that enhance marine biodiversity. It can be scaled up to be used in offshore wind farms, and shows how new employment opportunities and local identities can be created beyond conventional maritime activities.
The move to net zero also inspires Alexander Dennis Ltd, formerly Plaxton—manufacturers of fine electric buses and a major employer in Scarborough—and in September, Schneider Electric opened up a brand-new, £42 million, state-of-the-art smart plant that produces the critical electrical equipment needed as the UK moves to cleaner energy. I have visited that incredible new facility in Eastfield, which makes the low-voltage switchgear needed to manage and distribute incoming power supplies into separate circuits, such as the feeder pillars for electric vehicle charging. The plain green box behind the whizzy plug-in will probably have been made in Scarborough. The facility is net zero in scope 1 and 2 emissions, and it uses modern technologies to reduce energy waste and maximise the use of renewable energy, 30% of which will come from its own solar energy system.
By manufacturing in the UK for UK organisations, our investment builds resilience into the nation’s critical infrastructure, reducing exposure to global supply chain shocks and slashing both cost and carbon emissions through shorter, optimised transport and logistic routes. UK production means faster and more flexible delivery of bespoke engineering solutions, tailored to the unique needs of UK projects. Customers can visit the Scarborough site and collaborate directly with product designers and engineers to ensure that products fully meet their needs before they move into production. Companies like Schneider and Alexander Dennis are looking to us for joined-up policy and a stable regulatory environment, as well as a Government commitment to electrification, transport decarbonisation and buying British through procurement incentives.
Advanced manufacturing employs nearly 50,000 people across Yorkshire and the Humber, contributing £6.2 billion to the country’s economic output. I am proud to represent a coastal constituency where innovation and excellence in specialist manufacturing proudly plays such a major part in addressing the climate emergency and in our regional success story.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on shining light on a really important part of our economy, both locally and nationally.
Specialist manufacturing is critical to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, as well as to growth across the United Kingdom. I could talk about a range of companies, including Pearsalls, which is part of the Corza Medical group and has been spinning its looms in the same building since the 18th century. Today, it is the world leader in manufacturing sutures and surgical stitching materials, which it ships around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) mentioned the Agratas factory that is being constructed just across the border from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. As she said, it will employ around 4,000 people and have a huge impact on not only our two constituencies but the whole south-west economy. Many of my constituents work there already, and many local suppliers will be involved in the supply chain, so the regional economy will be greatly affected in a positive way. That is what specialist manufacturing can do for regional economies, but only if we get the skills right.
The University Centre Somerset College Group, which is based not only in my Taunton and Wellington constituency but across Somerset, is the largest college provider of apprenticeships in England. It has partnered with Agratas to develop new training pathways, including apprenticeships for upskilling and reskilling, to deliver the skills the new facility needs. It is not just another training programme: UCS has to develop a first-of-its-kind programme to meet the demand, which barely existed just a couple of years ago. It is not an easy task, but it is exactly the kind of innovation required to build a skills base that can support the new specialist manufacturing sectors we need, such as battery production.
UCS has done all that at its own risk, and without Government support. It is developing a curriculum and hiring specialist trainers in a completely new industry, with a lack of up-front funding. It will receive funding from the Government or other sources only once the course starts. As a further education college, it cannot borrow against potential future funding. The current FE model does not support the up-front investment that is required, and specialist skills will suffer as a result. Such investment is desperately needed and the current system has to change.
There is another way in which UCS skills investment is being held back. Colleges are no longer allowed to borrow in order to invest in the student accommodation they need as they used to be able to. The community of Taunton and Wellington, as well as the college itself, desperately want to see such investment. However, the college cannot facilitate that, because it is no longer allowed to borrow to invest. We cannot expect colleges to shoulder all the risk of these initiatives while the Government take the credit for positive outcomes without having supported them in the first place.
This issue is not just about specialist manufacturing skills; sites such as the Agratas site require an enormous amount of construction skills and labour. During peak construction years, the construction of the site will generate a total of £540 million for the region. If we are serious about boosting regional growth through specialist manufacturing, we need to be equally serious about training the people who will build such facilities and work in them. Agratas shows what is possible. The investment appetite is there. Battery manufacturing could be a brilliant new green growth opportunity for the UK. However, we need the Government to match that ambition with support for skills in both specialist manufacturing and construction. That means properly funding institutions such as UCS and ensuring that Skills England invests up front in these partnerships that deliver, rather than just producing consultation papers that plan.
For Taunton and Wellington, and indeed for the south-west as a whole, the opportunity is in front of us. The Government need to grab it with both hands and provide the support and the certainty to turn it into a success.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this important debate.
In discussing the contribution of specialist manufacturing to regional economies, there is no better example than the city that I am so proud to represent. Indeed, we have a bit of a pincer movement going on today, because all the MPs from Stoke-on-Trent are in Westminster Hall today. That speaks to the importance of our ceramics industry, whether it is traditional or advanced. That industry is personal to me, because my mum and my grandad worked in it; they would rightly expect me to be here for the debate.
As we know, Stoke-on-Trent was moulded by ceramics, and ceramics remains one of the UK’s most distinctive specialist manufacturing clusters. It is an industry built on technical skill, precision and an understanding of materials that has been passed down from family to family for hundreds of years.
When Moorcroft closed its doors earlier this year, I met its incredible workers who, between them, had over 800 years of experience in the ceramics sector. That is not some abstract figure but lived experience of firing temperatures, glaze chemistry—dipping, as we call it—moulding techniques and quality control. Those skills cannot simply be recreated once they are lost. I am delighted that Moorcroft now has a new lease of life. It has reopened under the stewardship of Will Moorcroft, the grandson of the company’s founder, which is great news for the city.
The reality of specialist manufacturing is that it is place-based. We have heard about the importance of identity. It crosses generations, and it has an economic and cultural value that goes far beyond any set of accounts. Across Stoke-on-Trent, ceramics companies continue to innovate. They support supply chains that reach into retail, hospitality, construction and advanced industries. They offer skilled employment and apprenticeships for our local people, anchoring our local economy, yet, as we know, the sector faces some real difficulties at the moment: rising energy costs, international competition from countries that do not have the same regulatory or cost environments, and an older workforce that needs a pipeline of new talent. If the Government are serious about backing specialist manufacturing, clusters such as ceramics must be treated as a strategic national asset that is worthy of receiving targeted support on energy, skills, exports and fair competition.
We all know that Stoke-on-Trent stands ready to play its full part in the UK’s industrial future, but we cannot afford to lose our skills and our manufacturers, which the generations before us built up. I hope that the Minister will set out clearly today how the Government plan to protect and grow specialist manufacturing sectors such as our ceramics sector, which remain essential to regional economies and to the country as a whole.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing the debate. We have some Yorkshire people here today.
Our manufacturing towns and communities have long been the engine rooms of this country. They built our economy, drove innovation and gave generations of working-class families good, secure jobs and pride in their local identity. From textiles and engineering to precision manufacturing, these industries shaped the story of our country.
In my constituency of Huddersfield, that story runs deep. The town’s industrial heritage is woven into its very fabric—literally, as Huddersfield’s rich textile history dates back to the early 1700s. Since establishing a worldwide reputation for the manufacturing of fine woollen and worsted cloth, the words “Made in Huddersfield” have been a highly revered global brand. Merchants travelled from across the world to buy Huddersfield cloth, and generations of local workers powered an industry known for exceptional craftsmanship, precision and skill. I have seen at first hand the skill and dedication needed to work in these industries, as my dad worked as a weaver for over 30 years at a local textile firm, C & J Antich & Sons. It makes the cloth for the best fashion houses in the world, as well as putting together materials for Formula 1 cars, which is very exciting.
The truth is that manufacturing matters to Huddersfield, and it matters that we make things in our country. Since becoming the MP for Huddersfield, I have had the opportunity to meet and visit many incredible family-owned and locally born manufacturers working in Huddersfield. That includes W. T. Johnson & Sons, a fourth-generation family-run textile finishing firm that has operated in Huddersfield since 1910; David Brown, a defence manufacturer providing highly complex equipment to the defence industry; the Textile Centre of Excellence, which provides training and research; Thomas Broadbent & Sons, which has run its company in Huddersfield since 1864; Olympus Technologies, which has been designing robotic solutions since the 1980s; Camira Yarns, a woollen spun yarn specialist that was founded in Huddersfield in the 1860s; and Reliance Precision, which has been around for 60 years and does some highly technical stuff that I do not fully understand, but it is very exciting. I also recently attended a roundtable hosted by the Calderdale and Kirklees Manufacturing Alliance.
On those visits, manufacturers and industry leaders often told me the same story. They want to grow, innovate and recruit locally, but there is an issue with finding a younger workforce, so continued investment in vocational training and partnerships between industry and education is really important. Energy costs continue to be a concern, and they want to make sure manufacturing —not just advanced manufacturing—is a strategic priority for this Government. We must invest in the businesses that make things here in Britain.
The ongoing impact of Brexit on trade and the supply chain is a concern for some businesses. SMEs particularly need support with cyber-security. Could the Minister explain what support is available to them? There was also some positive feedback on the export growth programme, which provides tailored advice to industry, and businesses asked what we can do to make sure that model goes further.
These businesses are not nostalgic for the past; they are building for the future. The challenge and the opportunity is to make sure that the benefits of that innovation reach the people and places who need them most. Skills and workforce development will be particularly important for that. Without long-term funding for skills, the system will continue to fall short of what both learners and employers need. If we invest in people, prioritise skills and provide stability for the specialist industries that underpin our economy, we can restore pride and prosperity to the regions that built this country. That means creating secure, high-quality jobs. It means keeping our young people in the towns where we grew up, and it means ensuring that the next generation can take pride in the industries that define their communities.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing the debate. When I woke up on this cold Wednesday morning, I did not think I would learn so much about the manufacturing in all our regions—and when there are so many Members from Stoke-on-Trent in the Chamber, how could we not learn so much about ceramics?
Specialist manufacturers do not operate in a vacuum; they need certainty to make investment decisions spanning years—often decades—and they need to know that the Government understand their sector and will back it for the long term. I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to British business and reinstated the industrial strategy, and I am pleased to see it focusing on many of the same sectors that the Liberal Democrats have prioritised for so long: life sciences, clean energy, professional business services, aerospace and automotive.
Obviously, the background to that is disappointment from the previous Government’s decision to scrap the industrial strategy in 2021, pulling the rug out from under businesses that had planned on the basis of Government commitments. However, I am disappointed that not enough attention has been paid to the agrifoods industry and the rural economy.
Agricultural technology was one of the 11 priority sectors that Liberal Democrats identified in our industrial strategy. Recognising and supporting that sector will help make food healthier, safer and more affordable. Agrifood tech is not a niche industry; it is about applying the same precision engineering we have for aerospace and pharmaceuticals to the sector that feeds our nation. It is disappointing that the Government have relegated it to a handful of mentions in the White Paper.
We cannot have this debate without discussing the issue that keeps specialist manufacturers awake at night: energy costs. Many other Members mentioned that we have some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world, and measures to bring them down will always be welcome news. When Nissan tells us that its Sunderland plant has the highest electricity cost of any of its plants worldwide, Britain’s competitiveness is obviously going to become an issue. That lack of competitiveness will harm our regional economies in the future.
Britain’s businesses are not only struggling in this sector. When it comes to regional economies and these specialist manufacturers, they do not just rely on affordable power for themselves and their factory floors; they also need it for the companies that supply them, such as local services and the businesses that form the ecosystem to allow them to be viable. It is also important for the hospitality sector and small and medium-sized enterprises, so the Government need to do more to ensure that small businesses across all those sectors have access to better energy deals. There cannot be a thriving specialist manufacturing area when broad business in the region is struggling.
Manufacturing is reliant on skills, and specialist manufacturing sites cannot be run without people with deep technical knowledge. When I speak to businesses across the country, they tell me that after energy bills and tax, skills comes out as their most pressing issue. Multinationals have the choice of where they put their facilities across the world, so we need to ensure that they are in Britain. That means that we need the talent pipeline, and not just the talent density, to ensure that that we are at the front of manufacturing in the future. The Liberal Democrats have set out a comprehensive approach to reforming skills that includes replacing the broken apprenticeship levy with broader flexibility in the skills training levy, guaranteed apprenticeships paid at least at the national minimum wage and lifelong skills grants so that adults can learn to use new technologies as they evolve.
I will briefly touch on two areas where specialist manufacturers are facing significant challenge, the first being trade. These are international sectors, and if the Government are serious about backing British business, they must show more ambition on trade with Europe. We would do that by negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, because our specialist manufacturers face red tape and friction when they trade with our largest and closest market neighbours. That makes them less competitive and increases costs. Secondly, there is the national insurance contributions—the jobs hike. The Government must scrap that damaging measure, because making it more expensive to employ people is counterproductive.
I conclude by pressing the Minister to work cross party to ensure that we get a fix for those issues and asking him about national exporting. We are hearing concerning news from the Department for Business and Trade about its plans to reduce its international export team by between 27% and 38%, and in particular reports about cuts to the Latin America trade support team of up to 54%. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on that, as that is an area we must focus on to ensure that Britain is competitive and is exporting. Given that we must support our small businesses to export, those reductions cannot be correct.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) on securing this critical debate, which is very timely, given the forthcoming Budget. I acknowledge the very pertinent point that he made about the importance of apprenticeships for the specialist sector more broadly.
The specialist manufacturing sector is one of those quiet national assets that rarely make front-page news but keep our economy alive. Its contribution to the UK is not abstract but is counted in highly skilled jobs, export strength and clusters of high-value industry. According to the latest figures, advanced manufacturing now accounts for more than 900,000 jobs across the UK and contributes more than £90 billion in gross value added to the economy. I am pleased that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the reality of advanced manufacturing’s value, which is spread across the country. I welcome the emphasis that they are placing on specialist manufacturing, as it is clear that the industry offers Britain a comparative advantage in our trade with the rest of the world.
The sector gives our communities certainty. I see that in my constituency, where we host a range of high-value specialist manufacturers whose work speaks directly to the issues raised in this debate. One such firm is Respirex International, a world-leading manufacturer of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear protective equipment, including gas-tight suits, respirators and chemically protective boots. Its products are not only exported worldwide, but used by emergency services and pharmaceutical and nuclear facilities across the UK, protecting lives in some of the most hazardous environments imaginable.
We are also home to Risbridger Ltd, established in 1922—an engineering company producing advanced components for aircraft servicing and petrochemical infrastructure. It contributes directly to aerospace and energy supply chains. That is exactly the kind of innovative, precision-focused industrial capability that we should champion as part of Britain’s economic future.
In Reigate and across our country, specialist manufacturing has always pulled in long-term capital because it deals in long-term capability. In 2025, the sector counted some 2,700 active companies, and the Government aim to increase annual business investment from £21 billion to £39 billion by 2035. That ambition matters, because regions such as the north-west already generate £14.4 billion in advanced manufacturing GVA. The west midlands generates £11.8 billion and the south-west generates £10.4 billion. Those are not marginal numbers; they are proof that British engineering remains globally competitive when it is backed properly.
Defence manufacturing is a genuine force multiplier. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the sector supports 200,000 jobs, with 70% of spending flowing to areas outside London and the south-east. Indeed, aerospace and defence manufacturing are particularly strong drivers of regional growth. Employment in the advanced manufacturing sector in Northern Ireland has grown more than four times faster than the UK average, while areas such as north Wales remain world renowned for aeroplane wing production. In Glasgow, specialist shipbuilding and satellite technology lead the charge.
Woven together in often complex supply chains, the specialist manufacturing sector demonstrates how fragile business ecosystems can be and why they need the Government’s support. But I must say, with deep regret, that the sector has received nothing of the kind, despite the Government’s lengthy blueprint earlier this year, which rightly identified eight key sectors as strategic priorities: advanced materials, agritech, aerospace, automotive, batteries, space, defence and maritime capabilities. But of course a strategy is only as good as its implementation, and manufacturers are seeing not policy support but punitive tax hikes, cost pressure and legislative risk.
As the hon. Member for Calder Valley and many others said, it would be fantastic if we used more British parts in the UK, but we do not because of the cost. To address that, we must bring energy prices and tax down; warm words in this Chamber will not do it. Since their very first Budget, the Government have inflicted a barrage of attacks on manufacturing businesses. The spiralling uncertainty pouring out under the door of No. 11 is damaging the confidence of every business, but especially the specialist manufacturing sector, and the warning lights are flashing.
Make UK reports that manufacturers’ operating costs have risen sharply, driven by energy prices, the Chancellor’s job tax and uncertainty around business taxation: 68% said that costs rose faster than expected, and more than half froze recruitment as a result. If specialist manufacturers are to keep delivering regional growth, energy competitiveness and a stable tax policy are not luxuries; they are prerequisites.
Let us consider the UK’s industrial electricity prices, which are now estimated to be 40% to 50% higher than the International Energy Agency median for comparable industrial nations. Make UK has gone as far as to call energy costs an “existential threat” to many specialist firms. The consequences are already here. UK steel and chemicals output has dropped 35% compared with 2021 levels, while imports of those same materials are rising. Just yesterday, we heard that ExxonMobil is closing its plastics refinery in Mossmorran. Four hundred jobs are now at risk because of what the company called the
“current economic and policy environment”.
I am confident that in a moment the Minister will rise to spin away any criticism, but this is indefensible.
The reality is that no Government that are serious about the future of advanced manufacturing in Britain would have imposed a jobs tax and changes to national insurance thresholds that hurt hardest those who employ the most. No Government who care about British advanced manufacturing firms and British workers would ignore energy costs that are four times higher than those of our competitors. No Government who believe in the future of our advanced manufacturing industry would introduce a 330-page unemployment rights Bill with job-destroying, hiring-freezing measures from cover to cover. No Prime Minister who wants to kick-start economic growth would look advanced manufacturing business in the eye and say that he has a done deal with the United States and then leave the industry in the dark as tariffs on items such as pharmaceuticals remain for months afterwards. And no Government who say they want to build skills would abolish level 7 apprenticeships.
Just as night follows day, the Government will talk big on business, but their actions show that much of it is merely empty rhetoric. Our specialist manufacturing sector deserves better; it deserves a Government who stand with them, and leadership that understands that when specialist manufacturing succeeds, Britain succeeds. We have in this country the expertise, the heritage and the industrial DNA to compete and excel, but the specialist manufacturing sector will not survive on pride alone. It needs certainty, cost stability and a Government who truly get what it means to make things. We urgently need to reclaim our status as the nation that builds, and the best way to start is by listening to those firms that still do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Carolyn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for securing this debate, and for his opening remarks.
Hon. Members may have thought, when they heard that Stoke-on-Trent had been “moulded by ceramics”, that it was the worst joke they would hear in the Chamber today, but I will try my best. When I heard my hon. Friend refer to valve valley, I wondered, as a cornet player, whether it was a reference to the famous West Riding brass bands: the Brighouse and Rastrick brass band, the Elland Silver band and my personal favourite, the Friendly band of Sowerby Bridge. I am sure that they use their cornet valves to lower or raise the tone just as effectively as we did in this debate. Cornet valves, of course, respond well under pressure—I shall see how I do with that.
Maybe, after this debate, the particular expertise of the valve industry in Calder Valley will be better known to the country. It is not difficult to see the impact that manufacturing, and the valve industry in particular, has on Calder Valley. I have seen, as I am sure those watching will have, the pride and importance that hon. Members across this House recognise in the manufacturing industries in their particular areas. These companies are the heart of British manufacturing.
In the valve industry, we have companies such as Hopkinsons, established in Huddersfield in 1843, which continues, as part of Trillium Flow Technologies, to export valves globally. Its valves are used in applications ranging from boilers to power plants, in oil and gas, and in petrochemicals. In Fort Vale, founded in Calder Valley, we have a global manufacturing presence making valves for transportable tanks. Last year, Fort Vale received its fifth King’s award—formerly the Queen’s award—for international trade. Blackhall Engineering is another astonishing story of a link between our Victorian heritage and modern engineering. It supplies valves for the New York City water board, replacing originals installed by its predecessor company a century earlier.
We need to recognise the local pride in Calder Valley, and in all parts of the country with a strong manufacturing heritage, and recognise the economic opportunity of wages and real value that manufacturing brings to these communities. But there are, of course, significant challenges, including those that hon. Members raised in this debate. I wish to address the challenges in procurement, skills and energy costs, as well as the challenges that have been mentioned for small businesses.
The framework through which the Government are working with industry and manufacturing is, of course, our industrial strategy, which attempts to respond to those challenges and to deliver productivity and growth, and is unashamedly place-based in the regions that matter to manufacturing. Some 84% of manufacturing jobs are located outside London and the south-east. I want to mildly disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because she mentioned deindustrialisation—a word that I do not particularly like to use in this sense. The UK is very much an industrial country; we have just chosen to locate our industry elsewhere, and part of my mission is to ensure that we regrow and restore that manufacturing here in the UK. I know that she would agree with that.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) spoke of regional growth, which is also vital. Our industrial strategy is about securing competitiveness not only for sectors, but for regional prosperity, and we recognise that manufacturing is key to the resilience of our national economy.
Gareth Snell
A lot of Members have talked about the importance of defence manufacturing; the Minister has talked about our economic resilience, but a big part of this is our sovereign capability and our national security resilience. I know that he has done work on that, so can he say more about how his work aligns with the work of the Ministry of Defence team to ensure that the manufacturing capability in the UK is about not just economic growth, but our national security and safety?
Chris McDonald
That point is well made. Of course, alongside our industrial strategy, we have our defence industrial strategy. When I come to talk about procurement, I may say more about that, and many hon. Members have talked about defence.
When we talk about our manufacturing sector, it is important to highlight some of the headline statistics. Manufacturing pays higher wages and has generally higher productivity in the areas where it is located and, when it comes to the balance of trade, although around 10% of our employment is in manufacturing, it accounts for around 50% of our exports. Those outputs, jobs and exports consist of thousands of specialist manufacturers, large and small, up and down the whole United Kingdom. Those exports are global and, as we have heard, we also export into space.
On procurement—I know that this area has been a major concern for many hon. Members, and particularly Government procurement—I have great sympathy for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I am happy to pursue the specific issues that he raised. I see it as vital to our manufacturing and industrial sectors that we ensure that the money that we as a Government, or our regulated sectors, spend is significant and is concentrated as effectively as possible in the UK, for both its economic and its social value. We need to raise awareness of the opportunities. We must ensure that those opportunities are open to UK manufacturers and that our UK companies are competitive enough to win those contracts. The industrial strategy plays a part in ensuring that those companies can do that.
To increase business investment, we must also ensure that we have a real market opportunity, both at home and overseas. Our clean energy strategy is introducing measures aimed at directly increasing UK beneficiaries in Government procurement. The clean industry bonus for offshore wind, for instance, is designed to encourage investment in Britain’s coastal industrial areas and supply chains. We also want to see robust local content targets. We are examining market demand guarantees to encourage UK scale-ups and introducing a clean energy supply chain fund to support UK-based clean energy manufacturing.
The defence industrial strategy, which I mentioned earlier—the defence industry is, of course, another user of valves—sets out a major reform agenda for procurement to grow our UK industrial base. We will be speeding up procurement processes and reducing bureaucracy, while ensuring greater visibility of defence procurement and taking steps to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater access to our supply chains. Our procurement and capital programmes are key to anchoring manufacturing here in the UK and then encouraging businesses to secure investment and export overseas.
UK manufacturing, however, ranks just 24th globally for robotics and automation. Here I move to the topic of productivity, which is of course a key element in profitability and competitiveness. That is an area where, as a nation, we need to work more. If we are not working digitally, we cannot adopt automation and move as fast as our competitors. Our Made Smarter adoption programme, with up to £99 million of additional funding, will help with this. It will support more manufacturing SMEs to take up new technologies and improve their digital capabilities. We have had reference today to the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which I know from personal experience is a great supporter of improving competitiveness, robotics, automation and productivity in our supply chains.
Skills was also an important feature of today’s debate. They were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, with his inspiring story of Stuart Billingham —maybe we all need to see more Stuart Billinghams in our lives. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) also mentioned regional skills development. I know that persistent skills shortages and the availability of good applicants are a concern felt across our manufacturing sectors. That is certainly an area for Government and industry to work closely together on, to encourage talented people from across the UK to seek jobs in our manufacturing sector. Fort Vale in Calderdale has a strong tradition in apprenticeships, and I understand that it receives over 140 applications each year for the opportunities it provides. That experience of high numbers of applications for apprenticeships is something I see across the country. I applaud the work of the West Yorkshire Manufacturing Services charity and its partnership with Calderdale college on the Industry 4.0 hub, which addresses exactly those digital issues.
Rebecca Smith
I mentioned skills as a significant challenge in the defence sector and the additional manufacturing. We have five defence technical excellence colleges opening by the end of next year. How well connected is the Minister’s Department with the Department for Education? Does he have any knowledge of when those colleges will be announced? They are surely a key part of what the Government hope to achieve with defence skills, but they will also be important for regions such as the south-west.
Chris McDonald
I welcome those comments. The hon. Member is right to point out that skills is a cross-Government exercise, and that applies not only to defence skills colleges. Work is done across the two Departments I work in—the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—and skills itself resides in the Department for Work and Pensions, which is where it is co-ordinated. Moving skills into that area and having the co-ordination there is exactly right. I also meet Defence Ministers to discuss this issue; many of these skills are transferable across industries, and we want to ensure that people can transfer across from different industries. A couple of weeks ago I launched the clean energy jobs plan, which provides support for people to move out of the oil and gas sector, for instance, and into clean energy industries. I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue.
Our focus on skills includes a new engineering skills package, worth over £182 million, to fund technical excellence colleges in advanced manufacturing. More widely, through the post-16 education and skills strategy, we are introducing wider reforms, including new foundation apprenticeships for young people in target sectors. Our new V-levels will encourage young learners into vocational pathways, and I am sure that hon. Members will have heard the personal priority the Prime Minister placed on this during his speech at the Labour party conference.
Attracting young people into manufacturing is clearly a priority for the sector, and our advanced manufacturing sector plan sets out ways in which we can do that. Wages in the sector are 8% higher than the UK average, which can provide great opportunities for young people. We heard earlier that welders earn even more than that—something that my nephew, who is a welder, also tells me. My welding is terrible, so I was absolutely unable to pursue that as a career. We are also concerned about equalities, and we have a target of 35% representation of women in the sector by 2035.
Young people also value their employment rights, and I should say to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that before I came to this place I ran a small business that had almost all of those employment rights. I understand that small business owners might be concerned, but I can assure them that it is perfectly—[Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. If the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) wishes to speak, I suggest that she ask for an intervention.
Chris McDonald
Small business owners might be concerned, but I know from personal experience that with the right level of support, it is perfectly possible to manage a business with these employment rights. I suggest support, rather than scaremongering, is the way to go. We heard from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about the support a previous local industrialist gave to their community. Although I commend that, Labour Members think that good pay and conditions are a right rather than a gift.
Energy costs are clearly the major competitiveness issue for industry. I agree with the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), about the lack of competitiveness of UK energy costs—she cited a figure from the International Energy Agency showing they were 46% above European averages, and that is a figure I recognise. However, our clean power mission will ensure that we are weaned off the international gas markets, to which we were enslaved by the previous Government for such a long time. The shadow Minister mentioned Mossmorran, which is a good example of a business that sustained losses for years and was unable to justify investment as a result of the previous Government’s neglect of manufacturing and industry.
We recognise that, beyond our clean power mission, we must do more and act quickly to support sectors with high growth potential and significant exposure to high electricity costs. We are increasing the support available for energy-intensive companies through the British industry supercharger, and from 2027 we will introduce the new British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs.
Gareth Snell
I make my regular plea to the Minister to consider extending the supercharger scheme to energy-intensive industries that are not currently covered, ahead of the introduction of the British industrial competitiveness scheme.
Chris McDonald
I would have been disappointed had I mentioned the supercharger from the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend did not intervene—I shall write that into my speeches from now on. His point is well made and is heard by me. A consultation on the British industrial competitiveness scheme will open shortly. I encourage the valve manufacturing industry of Calder Valley to participate in the scheme, and all Members to publicise the scheme to small businesses in their areas.
Hon. Members did not particularly mention regulation, but I want to raise it. Of course, £1 off the costs of regulation is worth £1 off any other business cost. A lack of new funding or of access to finance or working capital can be a reason that businesses fail to grow. Small companies tell me that financial institutions often do not understand their businesses or the need for more patient returns. We are undertaking a programme with the British Business Bank to make available £4 billion for our industrial strategy growth capital in industrial strategy sectors, and the Office for Investment will focus on high-value investments, leveraging the National Wealth Fund’s £27.8 billion for industrial strategy sectors.
Although we hear very strong voices regarding international alignment on products and standards, we also hear about the complexity of business regulation and its impact on smaller businesses. We have set out an ambition to cut the administrative costs of regulation for business by 25%. I am pleased to say that we have released a business questionnaire seeking views on the impact of regulation on businesses. Again, I ask for help from hon. Members in encouraging all manufacturers in their areas to consider closely which regulations are enabling or hindering growth, and where compliance is creating an undue burden.
Jim Shannon
I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is going to address my earlier request, which related to the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister back home. I know that he travels to Northern Ireland and has an interest in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we work together. Will he give the commitment I mentioned?
Chris McDonald
I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that earlier, and he is right that I have a strong interest in Northern Ireland and a great deal of respect for our advanced manufacturing there. I look forward to visiting the aerospace and shipbuilding industry there soon—I think it will be early in the new year—and I am absolutely committed to working with Northern Irish MPs and the local authorities to ensure that the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland thrives.
Our plan for small and medium-sized businesses, published this year, includes a number of additional measures aimed at assisting those businesses, including ending late payments, modernising the tax system, establishing the new business growth service, and considering how we can best support exporting businesses to increase their exporting activity.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The Minister talks about SME exporting. Is he aware that, although UK Export Finance has unveiled what it believes is a fantastic and ambitious plan to support 1,000 SME exporters a year by 2029, there are 314,000 SME exporters in the UK at the moment? I would not have thought that 1,000 a year out of 314,000 is very ambitious.
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right that UK Export Finance’s plan is to encourage an additional 1,000 businesses, but that is not the limit of our ambition with regard to SME exporting. It is important that we increase not only the number of SMEs that are exporting but, as I said earlier, the competitiveness of SMEs, so that they can increase the percentage of their exports. The work we are doing on UK procurement will also help with that by giving a baseload of orders to UK businesses that will then increase their competitiveness and enable them to win more export orders.
Dr Gardner
In 1882, a ceramics company in my constituency exported 50% of its products to Europe and globally. Since Brexit its ability to export to Europe has dramatically reduced. It can export to the US in two days, but it can take months to get its exports to Italy. What can the Minister do to help us improve our trade to Europe?
Chris McDonald
This comes back exactly to my point about regulation. Through our work with the EU, we are endeavouring to ensure that we have maximum access to the market. Where regulatory burdens are restricting export activity, I am keen to hear about them. I encourage businesses to come forward and support the questionnaire we have released on business regulation.
The industrial strategy places an emphasis on growth and frontier industries, but it also gives a clear focus to city regions and clusters with the highest potential to support our growth sectors. It is important to us that we grow the manufacturing sector across the country and also businesses, small and large, in supply chains, as well as well-known household names. I reaffirm that the Government have an ongoing commitment to UK manufacturing. We can too easily think about manufacturing as being about household names and consumer products, but we have heard a lot today about manufacturing businesses in the supply chain that employ many more people and make a significant economic contribution, over and above the consumer products we can buy.
As I know myself, manufacturing is about local businesses that have an impact locally on communities and prosperity, as well as on the growth of the country. The Government have a high ambition for our manufacturing industry. By 2035, we want to be the best place in the world to start, grow and invest in advanced manufacturing. We want to double the annual business investment entering the UK manufacturing sector from £21 billion a year to nearly £40 billion a year. That requires bold action, and in many of the measures I have set out we are looking to do more. The steps we have taken in setting out the industrial strategy and various sector plans this year, and the reforms we are making to skills, finance, innovation and regulation, will have a positive and lasting impact, not only for valve manufacturers in Calder Valley but for other specialist manufacturers around the UK.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for my elevation to Dame—it has a certain ring to it. I call Josh Fenton-Glynn to wind up the debate briefly.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank all Members for the tour we had of the UK, with a particular focus on Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about specialist ceramics, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) talked about Bakewell tarts and the saucers on which they are placed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) talked about the clusters that really make a difference. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) about textiles, and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the huge role Northern Ireland plays. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about things produced there that go to the bottom of the sea, and from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) about products that go into space. All of that leads us to understand the pride that people have when they produce things—when they make something in a factory in a town in the UK and it can go anywhere. That is why our manufacturing services are so important and why we need to make sure that we get the absolute most out of them.
I will resist talking more about brass bands, although the Minister tempted me to do so, but I will take him up on what he said about wanting to understand more about the valve industry. He is welcome to visit me in Calder Valley so that I can show him some of the things we do better than anywhere else in the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the specialist manufacturing sector to regional economies.
Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. This debate comes at a timely juncture, as later today Huntingdonshire district council will vote for its preferred option for local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire. For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of any Huntingdonshire district councillors watching this prior to casting their vote, my preference is for option E: a Huntingdonshire unitary authority. I have already stated my preference publicly, but today, ahead of that vote, I wish to reiterate the point and warn of the dangers of voting for anything else.
I am alarmed by reports that several councillors have opted to vote for option C, not because they passionately believe in the business case, but because they have apparently input option C and option E into ChatGPT and based their vote on the rationale it has provided, sharing it in WhatsApp groups with other councillors and influencing their decisions. If true, that is a hugely embarrassing way to decide on the future of Huntingdonshire.
Although option C is debatably the least worst other option, if Huntingdon district councillors are not prepared to vote for option E and back Huntingdonshire, why should the Government? By voting against a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, those councillors are voting against Huntingdonshire. If they vote against Huntingdonshire, they are effectively saying they are prepared to see it broken up, which is exactly what Labour wants to do.
Option D first surfaced supposedly as a proposal from two of Cambridgeshire’s Labour MPs. It was ostensibly pitched as their proposal, but we now know that it did not actually come from them. I have been reliably informed that option D emanated from the Labour east regional office and that Labour MPs were simply happy to put their names to it. Option D is clearly Labour’s attempt to pork-barrel the local government reorganisation of Cambridgeshire.
Last week, Peterborough city council, the council responsible for the appalling management of the local authority, voted for option D. Without any consultation with the people of Huntingdonshire, it voted, purely out of self-interest, to conduct a land grab of Huntingdonshire in order to shore up the council’s terrible financial position and have somewhere to build its houses.
I have read option D in detail, and nowhere does it articulate or explain what the benefit of splitting Huntingdonshire would be. I would be interested to see the engagement survey results and to know how many people across the whole of Huntingdonshire even knew that was a possibility. I suspect that the first that many people in my constituency will hear of it is when I post this speech on my social media.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to be helpful, as I always try to be. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on the debate. We had a local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, reducing councils from 26 to 11. The idea was to save money and make the system more accountable. It did not save any money and became more bureaucratic, and the people were the ultimate sufferers. If reorganisation is not done right at this stage, problems will occur down the line later.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.
Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.
Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.
It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.
The option D business case states:
“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”
That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.
Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.
Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:
“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.
Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!
Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has informed the relevant people that he is mentioning them today in the Chamber? Can I also ask him to keep his remarks to questions that the Minister can actually answer? A lot of this seems to be straying off into an area that the Minister has no power to influence or respond to.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Has the hon. Gentleman informed the people whom he mentioned that he would name them in Parliament?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I have to ensure that I ask you the question.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options.
When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%.
On improving children’s services, option D states:
“Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”.
On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states:
“Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”.
On special educational needs and disabilities, it states:
“The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”.
Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse.
Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire.
I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham?
Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote?
The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing:
“clear patterns of support for option A.”
Support from whom? The county council goes on to say:
“The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”.
How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised?
Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city.
One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden?
Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council.
Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it.
For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production.
A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.
Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy.
I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications.
The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that
“this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.]
Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment.
In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking.
If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects.
Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has.
I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
The matter that the hon. Member has raised is not in the domain of the Government. I have allowed him to continue, as it is something he obviously feels very passionate about, but I cannot expect the Minister to respond to issues that have nothing to do with her brief.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Thank you, Mrs Harris; I appreciate that. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your experienced and knowledgeable chairship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing a debate that is clearly of great importance to his constituency. I think that he asked me two questions, about the place of St Neots and about whether the Government intend to deliver on their defence commitments.
Unfortunately, in relation to the specifics of the proposals, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while we are in an active process of consultation I must reserve my judgment, so that I am able to take a decision based on the facts as they will be presented to me.
On defence, I am sure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, everyone in this country would expect the Government to do what we need to do to defend our country. Although that is not my specific responsibility in government, the defence of this country is a collective responsibility and I will work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, as I do week in and week out, to make sure that we are able to deliver on our commitments to keep this country safe.
Before I turn to the topics in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will briefly set out why we are reorganising local government and why that process is important to the Government’s overall objectives. Nearly a third of our population—about 20 million people—live in areas with two-tier local government services and functions split across county and district councils. That slows down economic decision making and delivery and leads to fragmentation in our public services.
Even in the short months in which I have been the Minister for Local Government, I have heard that from councillors directly. It is confusing—who does what and who is responsible? In our Department, several Ministers were leaders of councils themselves and so have practical experience of the issue. Through local government reorganisation, we are simplifying local government and establishing single-tier unitary councils everywhere.
We need stronger local councils equipped to make economic growth more likely, improve public services and empower communities. That is the point of reorganisation: so that we have councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than, in some cases, lines drawn on a map 50 years ago. Councils need to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and making sure that our national growth story includes everyone, everywhere. Local government reorganisation can help to do that. With one council in charge of each area, we will see quicker decisions to grow our towns and cities and connect people to opportunity. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment.
There are also social and public services benefits. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture, spot problems early and, for example, support a family in need of housing and then support the children to stay in school. That often does not happen at the moment—we see families who are dealing with the worst type of homelessness being passed from pillar to post.
We have already announced two new unitary councils in Surrey, investing in residents’ futures and putting local authorities there on a sustainable footing. I am also pleased to announce further aspects of the process. This is just the start: we are working with a further 14 areas across England that will benefit from this once-in-a-generation reform, with their proposals due by 28 November.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On putting councils on a good financial footing, there are huge concerns across Cambridgeshire about being partnered with Peterborough city council, because its finances are in such a grave state. Peterborough is already a unitary council. Would the Government consider excluding it from the rest of Cambridgeshire, working out how to do the unitary authorities elsewhere and then taking action at a national level to shore up Peterborough’s dire financial position?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises the fragility of council finances. Everything that we are doing needs to put local authorities on a much firmer footing. The past 15 years have seen town hall finances deteriorate. We are taking steps through the local government finance settlement to address that. More information on that will come shortly. Further local government reorganisation is an opportunity to streamline public services and get councils on a firmer footing.
Unfortunately, I am in the invidious position of not being able to comment on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, but I assure him that all the actions we are taking in relation to local government change have finance stability at their heart. He mentioned the work of CIPFA; I take the opportunity to pay tribute to CIPFA and the excellent work it does in helping to support councils. We will take more steps shortly to get councils on a firmer footing.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Local authorities across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have been developing proposals for unitary local government. That follows the commitment made in the English devolution White Paper last December and the invitation letters sent to areas last February. Decisions on the most appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, made with regard to the criteria he mentioned that are in the statutory guidance, the consultation responses received and all the relevant information.
The Government’s criteria for unitary local government set out that new unitary councils should enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment. We understand the importance of communities having their say on the future of their local public services, so we have been clear about the importance of councils engaging with local residents and organisations as they develop their proposals. I know that the hon. Gentleman led a Westminster Hall debate on these important issues before the summer recess and has been an active part of discussions on local government reorganisations in his area, as we have heard again today.
I am expecting to receive proposals from local authorities in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough by 28 November, and we anticipate that we will publicly consult on final proposals in the new year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am in a challenging position and it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage or provide my view on the specifics that he mentioned, because it would pre-empt future decisions that I have to make under the statutory process. There are clearly strong views locally, which were reflected in his speech. When the time comes to launch the consultation, I am sure I will not need to encourage him and his constituents to make sure that they have their say and feed in their views on the future of local government in their area. The Government want to hear them, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local councillors several times. I am sorry to say that I think being a local councillor has become a bit of a thankless task, whichever party local councillors represent, and our politics has become more fractious. I reiterate what an important job they do in providing people with preventive public services, trying to build our economy and being there for members of the public when they most need it. I will finish by saying a massive thank you to all the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, in my constituency and right across the country. They do a fantastic job.
Question put and agreed to.
Suicide: Reducing the Stigma
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of reducing the stigma associated with suicide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, in this very important debate; I am grateful that time has been found for it. Suicide can be an extremely difficult topic for people to discuss, whether that means talking about suicidal thoughts, opening up about an intent to commit suicide, or for the families and friends of loved ones who have taken their own lives and who need someone to talk to. That is why I would like to dedicate my speech to my constituent Philip Pirie, who is sitting in the Gallery, and to his son Tom, who tragically lost his life to suicide just over five years ago. I cannot imagine the pain that Philip has been through, which makes his work on suicide prevention in the following years even more commendable.
Just this year, Philip co-chaired work on the NHS guidance “Staying safe from suicide”, which developed best practice for medical professionals to help identify and support those who may be considered at risk of suicide, and I am pleased that the Premier League will be promoting this work. The guidance sought to support those who are in contact with mental health services; however, nearly three quarters of people who take their life are not receiving professional help. Philip has since been engaging with Members of Parliament, mental health workers and charities to discuss his proposal for a national public health campaign to encourage people to talk about the topic. Tackling the stigma of talking about suicide is critical to ensuring that people do not suffer in silence, and it is vital that those who are struggling feel comfortable in reaching out for support.
Today marks International Men’s Day, and perhaps the greatest issue impacting men in today’s society is their mental wellbeing. Suicide is the leading cause of death for men under the age of 50. Each death—of a son, a father, a brother or a friend to someone—is a tragedy. Members in this room will have experienced this close to home. We all know the shocking statistics associated with male suicide, but it is important to think about the individuals who lose their life, and the severe emotional impact that that will have on their loved ones, which cannot be quantified or understood by quoting statistics alone. Talking openly about suicide is the first step to reducing the stigma towards it, and I am so pleased to see MPs from all parties in attendance at, and wanting to speak in, this debate.
According to the charity Campaign Against Living Miserably, one in four people living in the UK will experience suicidal thoughts in their lives, while 200,000 people attempt to commit suicide each year. Suicide will impact almost everyone in this room, and across the country, in one way or another. We will all have been confronted with moments in our life when we know that a person close to us is struggling. But when we reached out to check on them, were we doing so just at surface level, or did we really try to tackle the thoughts that we suspected they might have been experiencing? With suicide such a prevalent issue in our society, why is it so difficult for us to talk about it frankly? Why do we try to dance around the issue, even when we know we should not?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On 30 September, I had the privilege of participating in the Baton of Hope relay across Torbay, which is an initiative that propagates conversations around suicide. The impact that it had across our communities in Torbay was amazing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the more conversations we have about suicide, the more we will prevent it?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging example of how taking steps to reduce the stigma around suicide can have a positive impact, and how we need a community approach to help reach out to all those people who might be struggling.
Although talking about mental health is becoming more socially acceptable, to what extent are we asking the challenging questions? To what extent do we really want to know how other people are getting on, and to what extent do people who are suffering feel comfortable in talking honestly about how serious their struggles are? For those reasons, I want to echo my constituent Philip Pirie’s calls for the Government to launch a public health campaign to truly tackle the stigma associated with suicide.
As we have seen today, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has launched his men’s health strategy. He promised the Samaritans that
“mental health and suicide prevention”
would be at the “heart of it”. Everyone in the House will welcome these words and the recognition that the men’s mental health crisis needs serious attention. I would like the Secretary of State to go one step further and consider a public health campaign with posters and adverts on TV and radio, and to hold regular open discussions with the public on the topic of suicide.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, all too often I hear devastating stories of suicide in the farming community. Campaigns such as the Farm Safety Foundation’s Mind Your Head play an important role in encouraging frank and honest conversations. We know that 95% of young farmers say that mental health is the biggest hidden danger in the sector. I fully support my hon. Friend’s call for a national awareness campaign; does she also agree that cuts to the rural England prosperity fund should be reconsidered, given the vital support it provides to rural-focused services, including those for mental health?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how specific groups and particular sectors can be impacted. Just under an hour ago I was having a conversation with my friend Diana Chrouch, who is the adviser to the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, of which I have been a co-chair for many years. She pointed out that there is a high risk of suicide for people working in the construction sector. I think it would be valuable to identify particular risk areas, and design a strategy that could reach out to them, but I also fully support my hon. Friend’s call on the subject of the rural England prosperity fund.
In the late 1980s, the UK launched a public health crisis to raise awareness of the AIDS epidemic. That was hugely successful: it not only raised awareness of safe sex practices, but served to reduce the stigma and falsehoods associated with the illness. At the peak of the AIDS epidemic in the UK in 1994, just over 1,500 people died from the illness. In the UK last year, more than 7,000 people died from suicide. That figure is growing, and the suicide rate for young women under 24 saw the steepest increase since records began.
As the Secretary of State identified in his men’s health strategy, underlying addictions, such as gambling and drug addiction, often cause or exacerbate mental health conditions. Those addictions can cause isolation and financial difficulties and destroy relationships. As the Government strategy identifies, 12% of participants in the gambling survey for Great Britain reported that they had thought about, or attempted, taking their own life. Many betting stores are positioned on high streets of deprived areas in the UK. We must acknowledge the link between gambling addiction, poverty and suicide.
The statutory levy imposed on gambling firms is a positive step, and I am pleased that the funds raised will be directly invested into gambling harm prevention, research and treatment, but what steps are the Government taking to engage those who treat, or provide support to, people with a gambling addiction to directly address the risk of suicide among their patients? What more can be done to integrate the identification of suicide risk into our approach to treating addictions of all sorts? What more can the gambling industry in particular do to mitigate the impact that its activities have on vulnerable people, particularly in the light of the enormous profits that it makes as a result?
Exercise can be a positive outlet for many people who are struggling with mental health difficulties, enabling them to set targets, grow their confidence and involve themselves in sociable activities. However, there can be a reductive narrative about the relationship between exercise and mental health, and that can be dangerous. Some influential, outspoken figures have dismissed the real and serious issues that people are struggling with by instructing people that going to the gym is the simple answer. For most people, a workout in the gym will encourage body positivity and self-confidence, but for some, the constant need to achieve a perfect body can lead to obsessions and eating disorders.
I support the Government’s recently announced work with the Premier League. Conversations about mental health also need to start in gyms and sports clubs, so I encourage the Government to target local sporting hubs to widen awareness of mental health, and to encourage those struggling to speak with friends, families or mental health professionals. Can the Minister tell me whether the engagement of sports bodies and mental health initiatives includes a specific recognition of suicide risk, and the ways in which sports clubs and coaches can assist in identifying and responding to suicidal intentions among the young men, in particular, with whom they work?
More also needs to be done to encourage support for employees in the workplace. Whether they are a new or experienced member of staff, reaching out to their line manager or boss to let them know about the difficulties they are facing, and to request additional consideration—whether that means an adjustment to working hours or time off to see a mental health professional, or just letting them know the stress that they are experiencing at work or in everyday life—can be daunting. I encourage the Minister to increase awareness of best practices to support employees’ mental health in the workplace, and ensure that those who are struggling receive the support that they need. What more can be done to assist employers with training on how to respond if they recognise that one of their employees is struggling with a mental health issue? How can workplaces support some of those difficult conversations that might make all the difference in saving a young life from suicide?
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Over the past 10 years in England and Wales, one student has died every four days as a result of suicide. Ben West, a young man from my former constituency, set up a project called Walk to Talk when he was 17 and still at school. He did this following the death to suicide of his 15-year-old brother Sam. Does the hon. Lady agree that talking and asking questions directly about suicide can help to remove the stigma around it and save lives?
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I am so sad to hear Sam’s story. It is very encouraging to hear about the steps that Ben has taken to raise awareness of the issue. The hon. Member makes an important point about academia at schools and universities; that is another big risk factor for young people. They feel the real pressure of academic studies and exam results, so schools and universities also have a role to play in reducing stigma and encouraging those conversations, which could be lifesaving.
We urgently need to tackle the stigma around suicide, and a public health campaign would be a significant step in the right direction. Many lives could be saved if more people understood the difference that the right conversation, at the right time, could have on the young people in their lives. We would not just save the lives of young people who are deterred from suicide, but save their friends and family from the burdensome legacy of grief, guilt and heartache that affects all of those who are affected by the suicide of a loved one.
In closing, I ask the Minister if he would meet me and my constituent Philip Pirie to discuss the details of a campaign such as that I have laid out today, as well as the impact that suicide can have, its increasing prevalence in our society, the impact it has on young men, in particular, and what this Government can do to take action.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her constituent, who is in the Gallery to support this campaign.
It is important to reflect on the progress that has been made in this country to remove some of the stigma around suicide, but more progress still has to be made. The more we discuss this issue in this House and in our constituencies, the greater the impact we can have in removing the stigma completely.
This Government inherited a mental health crisis—there are nearly 1.8 million people on NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment. At the same time, after decades of decline, suicide rates have increased since 2007. Worryingly, the suicide rate is now higher than at any time in the 21st century. In my local area of Kent, although the suicide rate has been coming down in recent years, it is still higher than the national average.
As is the case in the rest of the UK, suicide rates in Kent are significantly higher among men than among women. Across the country, 100 men die by suicide each week and men account for approximately three quarters of all suicide deaths in the UK. This trend has been consistent since the mid-1990s. While men are more likely than women to die by suicide in all age groups, that difference is most pronounced among middle-aged men—suicide is the biggest killer of men aged under 50. I welcome initiatives such as Movember, Andy’s Man Club, the Campaign Against Living Miserably and other similar schemes for the work that they do to help men. I particularly welcome the fact that today the Government published the first ever men’s health strategy, as part of which they will be working with the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about that, and about what will be done to remove the stigma around men’s mental health.
Suicide rates among young people are the lowest of all age groups, but over the past decade there has been a concerning 22% increase. A rise in the number of young people feeling disconnected and isolated after the pandemic lockdowns and an escalation in online bullying are reported to be contributing factors.
Another sector in which the silent tragedy of suicide is all too prevalent is the farming and agriculture industry, in which an average of three people die by suicide every week. Mental Health First Aid England reports that, between 2021 and 2023, suicide deaths among farmers increased year on year.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about young people and farming. Those two issues overlap in rural areas such as mine. Our child and adolescent mental health services are centralised in Dorchester, so someone living in the extremities of Lyme Regis, Beaminster or the surrounding villages could be looking at a 30-mile round trip to access them. Given that our part of the country is famous for its unreliable bus network, that is pretty difficult for a lot of young people and for those living in isolated communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that improving access to things like CAMHS is vital if we are to protect young people in rural communities?
Sojan Joseph
As someone who worked in mental health services for 22 years, I absolutely agree. We need access to mental health services, and not just for young people; everyone is important. Getting help early is key to preventing suicide among young people.
The situation is worse among men working in the farming industry. The likelihood that a male farm worker will die by suicide is three times higher than the national average for men. Earlier this year, a Farm Safety Foundation report revealed that over 90% of farmers said that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem in the industry.
What is contributing to that poor mental health and the increased risk of suicide among those working in the agricultural sector? It is driven by a combination of isolation—many work alone in remote areas—and financial pressure from market volatility, debt and rising costs. Long working hours, often exceeding 60 hours per week, lead to exhaustion and poor mental health. There is also a strong stigma around seeking help, which means that many farmers suffer in silence.
The connection between suicide and mental illness is well documented, but reducing the stigma of suicide should not be viewed solely as a mental health issue. Many individuals who die by suicide have never engaged with mental health services or displayed obvious symptoms, and not all have a diagnosed condition. People at risk often face a complex mix of personal, relational, community and societal factors. As the suicide prevention strategy highlights, common risk factors include physical illness, financial hardship, gambling, substance misuse, social isolation, loneliness and domestic abuse. Although mental health support is important, the strategy stresses that reducing stigma extends far beyond that. Focusing only on mental health risks overlooking those in acute distress who do not meet the diagnostic criteria. It also places the burden on mental health services, when in reality reducing the stigma of suicide requires a collective effort from local authorities, employers, schools, the justice system and society at large.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
One of my constituents, Steve, founded the Jordan Legacy after he lost his son to suicide. Its work involves outreach to schools, universities, employers and community groups. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he, like me, think that there should be more support for the fantastic work of such charities and organisations?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. Charities do a brilliant job. Youth groups in our communities used to be very good places for young people to go, and I would love to see them coming back into our communities.
Effective prevention means prioritising early intervention in schools, universities, workplaces and community settings, which are also important. Every suicide is a tragic event that has a devastating impact on the family and loved ones, and this impact can be felt across the community. That is why we must break the silence and dismantle the stigma around suicide. Every conversation matters. When people feel safe to speak, they are far more likely to seek help, and that can make all the difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for setting the scene, as she so often does. I know that this issue is very close to her heart; indeed, it is very close to all of us. I will give a couple of examples from Northern Ireland. They are never easy stories to tell, but both of them are solution-based. I will tell them without mentioning any names or specific details, so we can consider what steps we are taking to address the issue.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place—I wish him well in his role—and, as always, to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). He and I seem to be tag-teaming all the time on health issues in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.
When I thought about this issue, and I have given it a lot of thought because it is so real to all of us, I went back and forth in my mind about the title of this debate. The motion refers to “reducing the stigma associated with suicide”. I believe that we need to normalise talking about how we feel. I say that as a man, because men—myself included—seem to have some difficulty in understanding the issues that we face, especially the difficult aspects, relating them to others and acknowledging that we are not alone in having these thoughts. It is important that we recognise that, and that there is help for so many.
The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) is not here, but anyone who heard his Prime Minister’s question today will know that he lived the story that he told. We need to recognise what suicide truly is. He took us through his experience: he did us proud and did his family proud in how he dealt with the things he faced up to.
When I was first elected to this House back in 2010, the constituency of Strangford took in a new part, Ballynahinch. Around that time—in 2010, 2011 and certainly in 2012—there was a spate of suicides of young men in the area. It was horrendous. It was almost impossible to comprehend what was happening. However, a local Presbyterian minister, Rev. Mairisine Stanfield, galvanised the community in Ballynahinch to come together. What a lady she is! She organised all the churches and the individuals, who were all hurting and all wanted to know what to do. She was the prime mover: she created a hub in the area, which was a brand-new idea that gave young people and others a place to come together, talk about things, relate, socialise and have a chance. Alongside other things that were happening, the hub helped to reduce the suicides in that town, so I have never forgotten Rev. Mairisine. Indeed, I met her last Friday night at the mayor’s do over in Bangor. There she was, as bright as ever and with that wonderful smile. That lady motivated the people of the area, the community groups and others to come together and try to help, so I am always deeply indebted to her.
I remember that when I was younger—this goes back to the title of the debate—a stiff upper lip was expected. That was the demand of the day, but that approach is not helpful attitude to take to mental health. If we look at the cultural climate across most western countries, attitudes were shaped by fear, silence and, in some cases, religious views. This was not spoken about.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend will know that in Northern Ireland there are somewhere in the region of 200 suicides per year, which is deeply troubling and terrible for each family walking that difficult pathway. Online platforms and social media now play a huge part in some of those suicides. Does he agree that this Government need to go further in regard to platforms that are sharing information on how to commit suicide, and that we all need to play a role? Our mental health champion in Northern Ireland has said that by asking someone how they are, we are not likely to make the situation worse. There is a challenge for us all to reach out and ask people how they are, so that we can be more in tune with them and help them through difficult situations.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for her words of wisdom. I know that she has tried, before and during her time in this place, to address the issue of online access to information about how to commit suicide. I cannot conceive how that can be available; maybe I am from a different generation, but the availability today is scary. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I know that he will give us some ideas on how to tackle that.
People did not talk about mental health in the past. There was no awareness, and psychological conversations were not had day by day in the way they are today. We had a spate of suicides of young men in Newtownards a few years ago, and it was so tragic. There was a wee group of young boys who ran about together. One committed suicide, and unfortunately the other four or five all did the same. It is really difficult, sometimes, to deal with things.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) spoke about the suicide rate among farmers. This is not about pointing fingers—I do not want to do that—but I can say from the family farms that I know in Northern Ireland that the pressure on farmers today due to the family inheritance tax is incredibly worrying. I will leave it at that.
While any suicide is devastating, I would like to focus on the stats surrounding male mental health and suicide in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency revealed that there were 171 male suicides registered in Northern Ireland in 2023, which accounted for some 77.4% of all suicides. My goodness me! We men—that includes me and every one of us—need to have a look at how we deal with these things. Males in Northern Ireland are consistently three to four times more likely to die by suicide. It also noted that for males aged 15 to 49, such as those I referred to in Ballynahinch and Newtownards, suicide was the leading cause of death in 2023, followed by drug-related deaths.
Male suicide in Northern Ireland has been a painful and persistent issue for years, and the stigma around it can make things even harder for those who are struggling. The harsh reality is that men do not talk. We tend to be private about our health issues. There is a very strong cultural script back home that we just get on with it; we do not want to come across as weak or unable to cope, which is how we fear it would be perceived. Furthermore, for many men and their families, the pattern is passed down from our parents. To give a Northern Ireland perspective, our dads and grandads who suffered during the troubles were told to be silent at that time and swallow their feelings. Some of them had PTSD—we never knew what that was until the last few years, by the way. That has had a knock-on effect on how we deal with issues now.
We must do more to ensure that talking about mental health is as normal as talking about the weather or the news. That is how we will reduce the stigma. Transparency and openness is the way forward. First and foremost, we must ensure that help is accessible and available in this country. That is our responsibility.
Our mental health services are not where they need to be. More should be done to provide counselling services, as opposed to going to the GP and walking out with a prescription for anti-depressants. With great respect, they are not always the answer. I urge the Minister to tell us how the Government will do more to ensure that those services are properly funded so that we can help more people stop making that final decision, which some feel is the only way forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. If we stick to about seven minutes each, everybody can get in.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
Today’s debate on reducing the stigma associated with suicide is of grave importance to my constituents, particularly those in Ollerton, which has one of the highest suicide rates in the country. We know that the suicide rate is three times higher for men than for women, and although there are many contributing factors to that, one of the most significant is the stigma associated with asking for help and speaking up about mental health. There are so many societal pressures saying what men should be and how they should act. Often that involves appearing strong and as if they can face any problem head-on and by themselves. This starts very early. As a mother to a boy, I know that the attitude towards boys is often that they have to be strong, be tough and face things head on, and that crying is a weakness. It is ingrained by society in boys at a very young age. As a mother, I am consistently having to battle with those things.
The stigma of suicide affects not only the person struggling, but the people around them. Often loved ones do not know that someone is struggling and are left feeling confused and heartbroken. There is a ricochet effect to suicide, especially on the family and friends left behind. I know that because our family lost someone to suicide. The act of suicide leaves you grieving for a life gone too soon. It leaves questions, anguish and guilt and a space that will never be filled again. Mark was a son, a brother and a friend. I therefore welcome the Government’s landmark new health strategy, which will help to tackle men’s mental health challenges.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the incredible work of a Nottingham organisation: In Sam’s Name. After the death of Sam Fisher, Sam’s friend Richard McHugh wanted to create a safe place for males to break the stigma of talking about their mental health and help them realise that they are not alone. Their peer support group helps members find strength from men who have previous experience, or are also suffering with mental health issues themselves. Through the power of conversation, friendship and support, men in Nottinghamshire are saving lives. I will never fail to be astonished at the ability of people who have experienced unimaginable pain to use that in pursuit of making the world a better place for others. The organisation runs several groups in Nottinghamshire communities, including in Ambleside community centre in Ollerton, and has a partnership with our fantastic local football team, Ollerton Town football club. It is vital that we take this conversation directly to men where they spend their time, and that—especially in my constituency—is at the football.
We must also ensure that our communities are equipped with the necessary infrastructure to give help and support when it is needed. Access to healthcare in Ollerton is poor. Given its rural nature and high levels of deprivation, it is no stranger to the struggle to access basic services. Deprivation is a huge factor in suicide: rates in areas of high deprivation are almost double those in areas of low deprivation. If we are to reduce the stigma around mental health and suicide, people, no matter where they are born in the country, need access to healthcare and support. For Ollerton, that must include a super health centre where people can walk in off the street and access the healthcare they need. Working in collaboration with Ollerton Town football club, we want to transform lives, and that could work in combination with a healthcare centre.
I hope that the Minister will join me in recognising the importance of access to health services and support in showing men that there are places to help and people willing to listen. Nowhere is that more important than in Ollerton, where there is such a high rate of male suicide. Perhaps he would like to get on a train to sunny Ollerton, visit the football club and meet In Sam’s Name—
Michelle Welsh
The shadow Minister has obviously been to Ollerton before.
The Minister should go to see the fantastic work In Sam’s Name does, because it could be replicated across the country and have a huge impact. It would also allow him to see an area with fantastic people who support one another, but which is suffering because it does not have the services or infrastructure to combat suicide, and that is what we need to save young lives.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on International Men’s Day. I also pay tribute to her constituent, Philip Pirie; no one can imagine the loss of a child, and it is a testament to him that in the pits of his despair, he has reached out to others.
If ever I am asked when someone is struggling, I always say, “Just talk—help is available.” That would be my attitude today. If someone needs support, they should reach out and find it. Just six months ago, I might not have chosen to speak in this debate at all. Then, in the summer, two events taught me a harsh lesson; they made me realise that reaching out and receiving support is not so easy and, in many cases, not done.
On 13 August, I was driving to work on a normal day. I had been away for a long weekend with the family and had just dropped my kids at the sports camp. I was trying to work out what time I had to leave work to pick them up. As I said, it was an ordinary day. Then the phone rang and everything changed. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), who was then a Government Whip, telling me that Hefin David, MS for Caerphilly, had died suddenly.
To talk about Hefin in the past tense is surreal. He was someone so full of life—so passionate, so dedicated to his job and to the people of Caerphilly. He had a wide circle of friends. He was someone who knew help was available and would have told anyone else that, but now he was gone.
I think back to our last conversation in July and how normal it was: I was going to Greece and he was going to Benidorm. We both talked about how much we were looking forward to the break. We ended the conversation by saying we would speak when we were back. Surely, I thought, the news that he was gone was not true. But that is the grim reality that all his family and those who loved him have to face on a day-to-day basis.
Then, a month later, on 14 September, while I was settling down for Sunday lunch, a news alert flashed up on my phone telling me and the world that Ricky Hatton, the beloved Manchester boxer and world champion, had been found dead. I had only met Ricky on a few occasions at boxing events, but I was always struck by how polite and down to earth he was—a man who dedicated his post-boxing career to men’s mental health and talked candidly about his suicidal thoughts. He brought joy and excitement to so many people and had seemingly put his problems behind him, but he was found alone at home.
In different ways, both Hefin and Ricky were warriors. One fought passionately in the Senedd for those on the margins of society, and one demonstrated untold bravery in the ring. In the end, outside appearances can, and often do, mask the struggles that men face.
The importance of this issue cannot be overstated. With the rate of male suicide in Wales having risen by 56% in the last 40 years, it has become the joint highest killer of men under 50, with those aged 45 to 49 facing the highest risk. At that stage of life, men are burdened with societal expectations that mandate how they should think and behave. Those expectations are passed down from generation to generation, derived from traditional notions of masculinity that promote strength, self-reliance and emotional restraint.
Acknowledging poor mental health can feel like a confession and lies at odds with this supposed ideal. Rather than being seen as a sign of humanity, it is viewed as a weakness or failure to live up to what a man should be, as opposed to men being seen for what they are: simply human beings. Men are just as likely to experience emotional difficulty in life as anyone else, so why are they expected not to talk about it? As a result, many men are reluctant to seek help and tend to downplay symptoms for fear of appearing weak or vulnerable.
It is important to acknowledge that there are people in society doing important work to address this problem, undo stigma and, more importantly, start a conversation. The Jolly Brew Crew in my constituency is a free men’s mental health group focusing on peer support, reducing stigma and having more meaningful conversations. It provides a place for men of all ages to go, speak openly about their problems and feel supported. It has fostered a sense of community, combating social isolation and loneliness, proving that problems can be solved.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and moving speech. Does he agree that organisations such as the one he mentioned mirror the work of Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, a support group in my constituency who literally go out on walks together? They also run a podcast, which I was on this week. It is all about getting men together so that they can talk about the way they feel. In my view, that is one of the best ways to avoid terrible mental health problems. Boys and young men should always be encouraged to speak to friends and family, and to seek the help of charities and, when they need it, professional help. We can then break the stigma and prevent far more of these terrible cases of suicide.
Chris Evans
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the group he mentioned. Anything that can be done to reduce the stigma of suicide must be done. We must realise how important this is. One family losing one life to suicide is one family too many. It is time to end the silly stigma about “real men” being this, that or the other. Real men talk about their feelings. We are human and we have got to get away from this stigma.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, groups are incredibly important but they cannot bear the sole responsibility for starting the conversation and providing support. Government must provide more education, support and treatment for mental health. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park about health awareness campaigns, which are vital. There are posters of Davina McCall referring to breast cancer to ensure that it is diagnosed earlier than ever. We should take the same approach to suicide.
Suicide is the joint highest killer, alongside accidental poisoning, of men under 50 in Wales. It is ironic that there is so little conversation about such a big killer. That must change and can start with local groups, but should be led by the Government. If the mental health strategy launched today is to work, it must not only address men’s health issues, which have long been ignored, but seek to undo the deep stereotypes that impact men’s likeliness to reach out for help.
Undoing those stereotypes will make it more acceptable for men to receive support in any area of their lives, proving that their struggles can be addressed. There is no stigma or embarrassment in that, only strength. The impact that Government action can have on the stigma surrounding men’s mental health and suicide must not be overlooked. Healthcare systems must better hear and respond to the epidemic of male suicide. I hope the Welsh Government introduce a similar strategy to address those problems.
At a meeting I had with the Men and Boys Coalition charity last week, it revealed the necessity for a men’s health strategy in Wales. I want to echo that message. My constituency has the seventh highest suicide rate in Wales. Figures like that prove the necessity and urgency of a mental health strategy. I know the Minister well and we are friends. As a fellow Welsh MP, I hope he can use his influence to ensure that the Senedd adopts the strategy we have launched today in England.
More importantly, I call for the rhetoric around male suicide to change: compassion, understanding and kindness must be at the heart of whatever we do next. We must use the lessons we have learned from the deaths of others. The solution may involve some uncomfortable, unfamiliar and new conversations, but those conversations could save someone’s life.
I want to end by talking about Ricky Hatton. He fought battles in the ring and fought wars, but the one battle he could not face, against himself, he lost. Let us hope that there are fewer people who feel like that. I urge the Government to take action.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate, and I thank hon. Members for their powerful speeches and interventions.
I start by wishing everybody a happy International Men’s Day. It is a great opportunity to reflect on the contributions made by men and boys, and a chance to talk seriously about men’s mental health and wellbeing. All of which, I hope we will continue to do tomorrow in the Backbench Business debate on International Men’s Day, which I have the honour of leading this year. I hope all hon. Members who are able to will join us.
One issue we cannot shy away from is suicide. As we have heard, it remains one of the leading causes of death for men under 50, which is a heartbreaking and unacceptable reality. This morning, as I scrolled through Instagram, I came across a video of Clarke Carlisle speaking to the Health Secretary. He said something that struck me deeply:
“There is no situation that is irretrievable other than a completed suicide.”
That is a powerful reminder that every moment before crisis is a moment when a life can still be saved.
That is something I can relate to personally, as I have suffered throughout my life with mental ill health and probably always will. In the past, I have felt that the world would be a better place without me. I will be honest and say that has been the case even in the past 12 months. I have not said that out loud to many people, but in debates like this, I think we should be as open as possible in the hope that it helps others and shows that mental ill health and suicide can touch all of us, no matter what position we are in or what walk of life we come from.
As always, our NHS is there to care for us in our most desperate moments and to help us recover, but for so many, that is sadly not the reality when it comes to mental health. That is why I am proud that today the Government have published the first ever mental health strategy. I wholeheartedly welcome it and think we should be very proud of it. In particular, I welcome the commitment of £3.6 million over three years for suicide prevention projects that are focused on middle-aged men, particularly those in the most deprived communities where the risks are highest; the partnership with the Premier League and the Samaritans, through the Together Against Suicide initiative, which will embed mental health messaging directly into the matchday experience, where many men already feel at home; and the expansion of mental health teams in schools, so that nearly 1 million more young people will have access to early support by 2026.
I particularly commend the Government’s approach of involving the Premier League, because we must do everything we can to reach out to men who have previously felt isolated from discussions around mental health. Let us face it: those discussions can sometimes feel too full of expectation and pressure or can be too medicalised, rather than meeting men where they are by using language and settings with which they already feel comfortable and familiar. The reality is that, for many, it is hard to be a man in today’s society. Many men feel overwhelmed by stress, financial pressures and expectations of being a provider, a protector and a pillar of strength. They feel as though they are failing in those roles, not because they are failing as men but because the structures around them have stopped giving them support.
This morning, I went to a briefing from More in Common, which has produced a fantastic report on how men across the country are feeling. It told us that nine in 10 disillusioned men feel that politicians do not care about places like theirs; seven in 10 believe that no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to improve their circumstances; some feel that they no longer have any good friends to rely on; and many do not feel proud of their community. Many men feel that debates about masculinity and gender cast them as the problem, never just as people trying to get by in life and partners in building a better society.
That matters for suicide prevention because a man who feels he has no control over his life, who feels isolated and that he is failing the people he loves, is a man who is more vulnerable to crisis. The path to suicide often begins not with one traumatic moment but with a long erosion of purpose, belonging and hope. That is why we must continue to promote male-focused approaches to building positive attitudes towards mental health to help to restore a sense of a man’s role in society and to create spaces and conversations about wellbeing that genuinely work for men.
That is one of the many reasons why initiatives such as men’s sheds, Andy’s Man Club and Stand By Me, which is a local group in my constituency, have been so effective. In the world of farming, the Farm Safety Foundation does incredible work through its Yellow Wellies campaign. I only wish that our farmers did not have the dark cloud of the proposed changes to inheritance tax hanging over them.
Many men describe support groups as feeling like a family and a community where they can be honest and hear someone say, “It’s not just you,” and “You’re not alone.” If we want to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, we must recognise that mental health is not isolated from everything else in a man’s life. Financial security matters, sense of belonging matters, community matters and conversation matters. Men need spaces where they feel safe to talk long before they reach a crisis point.
Strength is not found in silence, and courage is not found in pretending that everything is fine. I hope that we can continue this conversation and make today’s International Men’s Day the start of a really positive set of actions, so that men do not reach that irreversible point of crisis.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for bringing this really important debate to the House, and I join other Members in paying a massive tribute to her constituent Philip for the incredibly positive work he has done in the wake of an unspeakably devastating event. I thank him so much.
I pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that the world is a much, much better place because he is part of it, but I know how mental health works, and I want to say that if he ever feels that it is not and wants someone to speak to, he can come and speak to me. However, it works both ways, and I would also appreciate that.
According to the 2024 health and wellbeing report commissioned by Harlow council, the suicide rate in Harlow is 16.3 people per 100,000, which is higher than the Essex average of 12.6. Suicide is a significant issue for my constituents, and I am aware that Harlow Mill station in my constituency is one of the biggest blackspots for suicide in Essex, as I have previously discussed with Greater Anglia staff.
I join the hon. Member for Richmond Park in calling for a national campaign to tackle the stigma of mental health, specifically by talking about suicide. I also join the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke about his personal experiences of mental health in PMQs today. That is so important.
As many Members on both sides of the House have said, it is important that people do not suffer in silence and feel confident to talk about their struggles with others. It is also important for their friends and family to have the confidence to ask the question, “Are you all right?”, sometimes several times—we must feel that we can check on each other. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate from my opening remarks that they can always ask me that if I look like I need to be asked.
This seems a strange point to make, but I want to talk about 28 November 2011—I am glad there are two Welsh MPs in the Chamber today. I woke up to the news that one of my footballing heroes, Gary Speed, had taken his own life, and it really shocked me. I was shocked again this morning when I read that he was the same age as me when he took his own life: 42 years old. Gary Speed was a hero to me, and I think he was the greatest Welsh footballer who ever lived—although I am sure some would argue with that—so when I talked about mental health to a class of mine, I spoke about him.
What was particularly shocking about the news was the fact that the very morning that Gary took his own life, he was on television as a pundit talking about a football match. Anyone watching that had no idea that he was suffering from mental health issues or that he was going to take his own life. It is important to recognise that people suffering from mental health issues or potentially suicidal thoughts do not have a badge that tells other people that. It is not necessarily obvious; in fact, there may well be no external sign that that is the case.
I realised this morning when I was writing this speech that it is a year this month since a friend of mine, Matt Parsons, took his own life. He was one of the many people I used to talk to at Harlow Town football games. He had an encyclopaedic knowledge about “Doctor Who” and “Neighbours”, which is why we got on so well. It came as a huge shock when Matt took his own life. Every life lost to suicide is one life too many, and I often reflect on what I could have done, or whether there is anything that I or others could have said, to prevent that happening. I wanted to reflect on that, pay tribute to Matt and mention him in this place.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who is no longer in her place, mentioned social media. It is fair to say that social media has its part to play, and it is important to reflect on some of its dangers. Only recently, I spoke about the dangers of the glorification of drug taking on social media. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the terrible videos about how to take your own life, which is absolutely awful—I am as shocked as he is about that. There is also a place for social media to be part of the solution, and I hope the Government will consider that when we look at a public health campaign on the stigma of suicide and talking about suicide.
I also pay tribute to groups in my constituency. We have talked a lot about farming, so I want to pay tribute to YANA—You Are Not Alone—which is a farming charity that offers mental health support and is based partly in my constituency. I pay tribute to Harlow men’s shed, Hatfield Heath men’s shed, Mind in West Essex and the Young Concern Trust, which provides counselling for young people. I declare an interest because I am one of the trustees there. I also pay tribute to Butterfly Effect Wellbeing, Roots to Wellbeing and many more. There are so many good people in my constituency and across other constituencies who want to support people suffering from mental ill health. I pay tribute to what they do. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it is incredibly powerful when people who have suffered such devastation —we have one such person in the audience today—turn that into a force for good, so I thank them for that.
The Labour Government have committed to recruiting 8,500 extra mental health professionals, improved infrastructure and improved training. Will the Minister talk more about that and about the substantive point, which is ending the stigma of talking about suicide and potential suicide thoughts? Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for securing this important debate. I hope the honesty with which Members on both sides of the House have spoken will help to challenge that stigma, and I hope we can continue to do more.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this hugely important debate. I thank all the Members who have spoken today, especially the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), who was vulnerable and honest, which can be difficult in a public forum. His example will help a lot of people to understand that no matter what job we do and how much support we have around us, people still have these kinds of thoughts.
Many people know that I was involved in a mental health charity that offers support to the veterinary profession. Vets have a suicide rate about four times the national average. It is a tiny profession, so everyone knows everyone, and everyone has lost friends and colleagues to suicide. Vets have challenges similar to farmers, another demographic who we know struggle quite a lot.
I pay tribute to Mr Pirie for being here today. The most difficult and emotional conversations that I have had since becoming an MP have been with parents who have lost children to suicide and wives who have lost husbands. Amid the frustration and anger that they all experience, they feel that if they had just known how much someone was struggling they could have done more to support them. Even worse are the cases where someone was actively trying to access support, but did not get the right type of support at the right time and so fell through the net.
I think about my own friends, Sarah Brown and David Bartram, two vets who were also trustees of a veterinary mental health charity. When we lose people, it is important that the memory of their life is not defined by how they died. Sarah was one of the funniest people I have ever met. She never missed a night out. David was an ultramarathon runner and one of the best speakers I have ever seen giving lectures. He was a hugely engaging person. It is a real shame that people get remembered for the way they died and not the positive contribution and the fun and happiness that they brought when they were here.
As a mental health spokesperson, I get really concerned when I hear people from other political parties, specifically Reform, belittling mental health issues and saying that it is the new back problem, it is over-diagnosed or people should man up. Are they seriously saying that farmers, who are some of the toughest people we could ever meet, working all hours in all weathers and earning a living in the hardest way possible, and veterans, who have experienced situations that most of us can only ever imagine, are a bunch of snowflakes who need to man up and toughen up? Mental health is a real problem that can affect even the hardest people on the planet, and no one is immune to those sorts of challenge.
Other Members have talked about 2023 having the highest rate of suicide for 25 years. That rate, thankfully, is slightly declining. It is interesting that the World Health Organisation states that depression is the No. 1 global disease. It affects people in all countries; it is a very prevalent issue. We are much better than we used to be at talking about depression and mental health issues, but suicide is the one aspect of such issues that still carries a lot of stigma. People still do not want to talk about suicidal thoughts, or sometimes there is shame in having a relative who died from suicide. It is not talked about as openly as it could be.
I thank the Minister for his diligent work over the last year on the Mental Health Bill. We have all worked closely on that, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). It is fantastic work and I know the Minister cares very much about this issue. I also welcome the £3.6 million over three years provided under the men’s health strategy specifically for suicide prevention, although I am concerned that it is very much less than the previous £10 million-a-year suicide prevention grant fund for voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. How will the £3.6 million be targeted? Will there be scope to support in other ways the many organisations and charities, such as the Samaritans, that have contacted me to say that the grant is a significant part of their funding to deliver their services to help prevent suicide?
There are so many amazing community groups all over the country. I meet some quite regularly. The Farming Community Network, the Bishop’s Waltham men’s breakfast, the men’s sheds that are everywhere—we have one in Alresford and one in Hambledon—and Winchester Youth Counselling do brilliant work bringing people together. We must do everything we can to keep those organisations viable, running and thriving. It is so much more economic if people are prevented from heading down the route of depression, with a good social network and a lot of community support, than if they end up needing to engage with clinical services.
I also thank all those on the frontline: the clinical staff, the nurses, the counsellors and the carers caring for people who are struggling with mental health issues. The mental health of carers is another huge issue.
Dr Chambers
I will—the hon. Gentleman caught me two seconds before I finished.
Chris Vince
I apologise for that; it happens to me a lot as well. The hon. Gentleman mentioned carers. That is particularly important because tomorrow is Carers Rights Day. I worked for a charity that supports young carers and we have seen an increase in the number of young carers supporting people with mental health issues. There should be recognition of carers, including young carers, so I thank him for mentioning them.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for intervening just in time. I reiterate how pleased we were that the Minister looked at the amendments to identify children of mental health patients. Sometimes those children are essentially carers as well, and it is really important that we know they exist and that they get the support they need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I want to start by finishing where I left off in the main Chamber in the debate during Suicide Prevention Month. I talked about a TikTok meme that was going around about where men go, and who they turn to, when they are at their lowest. The answers in that video are all “no one”: “No one cares”; “There’s no one”; “It’ll be used against me.” I want to speak to the people in that video, because after I mentioned it, I received literally hundreds of messages, first to thank me for raising it, secondly to thank me for raging, because people are not listening, and thirdly to say, “Well, people don’t care.” Actually, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the Members from across the parties in the Chamber today do care.
This is an ongoing conversation that we are having, and action has been taken by previous Governments and is being taken by this Government. We must get out the message that things are happening and that people are talking about it and are interested in it. This is being looked at and discussed at the highest possible level to bring in changes to make the world a little bit better. It is thanks to the pressure that we apply in this place that such changes are made, and I think it is important to get that on the record.
When it comes to men’s health, I am very keen to point out that this is not an “or” issue—it is not about women or men, but about women and men. That is particularly the case for mental health and mental wellbeing because woman partners often spot the issue first. Women are the advocates we all need when we are having this discussion, and it is important to make sure that is on the record too. The last Government brought forward the women’s health strategy, and we now have an allied men’s health strategy. They are not in competition, but work in conjunction, which I think is important.
I followed up September’s debate on suicide prevention with a letter to the Ministers to raise a few points, and I think it would be prudent for me to use my time to press them home a bit further. The first point was about the £10 million suicide prevention grant fund, which was brought in to deliver specific support for 79 organisations between August 2023 and March 2025. The fund has now run out, and after that was raised, the Minister for Care responded in answer to a written question:
“There are currently no plans to run another grant fund.”
However, in April he followed up by saying:
“We will be evaluating the impact of the fund, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. Learning from this evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
In my letter, I asked whether we could have
“some details on the basis behind this decision”
as well as
“what alternate provision…is being provided”
and when we would hear about the evaluation. I was lucky enough to get a response on 13 November from the Minister in the other place who has responsibility for mental health. She addressed that point, but she simply said:
“As previously stated, the Department is evaluating the impact of the Suicide Prevention Grant Fund from 2023 to 2025, and the services that have been provided by the grant-funded organisations. The evaluation will be completed in due course and learnings from that evaluation will help to inform the delivery of the Government’s mission to reduce the lives lost to suicide.”
That is welcome news, but we have now gone from April to November, and I would like to understand when the evaluation will come, because it will be imperative in deciding how we take forward these services.
In that light, I welcome the men’s health strategy, particularly its emphasis on suicide. However, as my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), pointed out, the £10 million over two years seems to dwarf the £3.6 million across three years. That is a concern for the Opposition, especially when we look at how it is likely to be delivered, which is through the charity sector, as the national insurance changes have already taken a massive toll. For example, Mind has said that that tax increase will cost it £250,000, so its £1 million across a year suddenly starts to be whittled away. I am keen to understand how the Government will square that circle.
That leads me to my last point, which we have raised in the House before—I have certainly raised it both with the last Government and now with this one—on the issue of representation for men and boys. Before the election, the last Government were looking at having a men’s health ambassador. In my letter, I asked whether any consideration was being given to bringing in such an ambassador or about having a Minister for men and boys. I am open to suggestions about how that could work or would not work, but it strikes me that in the current climate, we have a Minister for Women, but not one for men and boys.
That leads me full circle back to where I started, which is that this is not an “or” issue, but an “and” issue. If we believe that women consult differently on their health, by definition men must do so too, so we need different pathways. The strategy is a good stepping stone from the Government, and I welcome it, but I just hope they use it as a springboard, rather than simply as a plank across a river.
We have talked a lot about the stigma, which is probably the most important thing, and heard a lot about how it is important to talk, but if we think about what the people in that TikTok video are really saying when they talk about how they feel there is no one, we as a society and this House have to not only listen, but show that we care, we have to make people believe that we care, and we have to follow that up with actions to allow people, in particular men, to get the help they need to help themselves. That is really important.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on such a vital topic. I pay tribute to her constituent Philip Pirie, who has been such a strong advocate on this issue. His campaigning and advocacy has absolutely helped us to shape where we are today.
I am also very grateful to other hon. Members for their valuable and profoundly moving and honest contributions. We heard many examples, some very high profile and in many cases household names, such as Ricky Hatton and Gary Speed, and others heroes from people’s local communities. Their heroic families have done so much to reach out and campaign on these issues. I knew Hefin David very well. The tragedy of Hefin is impossible to put into words, but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) really did pay a fitting tribute to him. and I am sure his family greatly appreciate that.
Every suicide is a profound tragedy, leaving families, friends and communities devastated. As we work to improve prevention and support, we must also confront the stigma that too often stops people seeking help, speaking openly or being met with understanding. That is why we are committed to delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England, which aims to address the risk factors contributing to suicide and ensure fewer lives are lost to suicide, as well as working across Government to improve support for those who have self-harmed or who are bereaved by suicide.
Our manifesto committed to a renewed focus on preventing suicides, as one of the biggest killers in this country. Poor mental health is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide, but we know that suicide is complex and that there are a range of other influencing factors outside the mental health system that we also need to address, including those identified in our suicide prevention strategy: financial difficulty and economic adversity, substance misuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, physical illness, and social isolation and loneliness. These are complex pressures, and we are working across Government and beyond to better understand them and deliver on our commitment to tackle them.
Beyond the risk factors and priority groups, one of the key visions of the suicide prevention strategy is to reduce the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, so that people feel able to seek help, including through the routes that work best for them. That includes raising awareness that suicide is not inevitable. Around a quarter of people who take their own life are in contact with mental health services. Through the delivery of the 10-year health plan, we will transform the mental health system to ensure that people are accessing the right support at the right time.
Nearly three quarters of people who take their own life are not in contact with NHS mental health services, but many are in contact with wider services. We will ensure that our delivery of the 10-year health plan, which focuses on intervening early so that people can access high quality and compassionate support at an earlier stage, also considers how we can support those at risk of suicide when they are not in contact with those services. Our cross-Government approach to suicide prevention will help us to make the most of key interaction points both within and outside public services and address risk factors for suicide for everyone, not just those in contact with the NHS.
Steady progress has been made through joint working with our colleagues in the NHS, the voluntary sector and academia and with a wide range of other partners, all of whom play a key, crucial and valuable role in prevention, early intervention and support.
John Slinger
On the point about the various organisations, governmental or otherwise, that are involved, will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of Rugby borough council, which has partnered with the charity I mentioned earlier, Back and Forth Men’s Mental Health, to put plaques on benches across the council’s parks? These support plaques state:
“There’s no need to sit alone.”
They also encourage local businesses to sponsor them, which is a really good example of how the private sector, local government and the charitable sector can work together to make sure more men can gain access to support—not necessarily by calling a phone line, but just when they are in the park.
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rugby borough council. That sounds like an excellent initiative that we should explore in other parts of the country, if that is suitable. He is right that there is almost an ecosystem of different groups now. In my constituency we have the Men’s Shed and a fantastic walking group for men called Mal’s Marauders, which does fantastic work. That is great to see, and I am a huge fan and supporter of what it does and stands for.
A lot of this is about having that organic development at the grassroots, because that is where it is best placed; it is not always for the Government or the authorities to come in—in some ways, that might not be appropriate. We should do whatever we can to encourage these things, and our £3.6 million programme and our £3 million programme are absolutely about being co-designed with these groups; they are not a top-down process at all, but something that should be organic and from the bottom up.
It is important to highlight the fact that this debate falls on Wednesday 19 November, which is both International Men’s Day and the day when we are launching the first ever men’s health strategy for England. Despite huge progress over the past century, men still live too much of their lives in poor health and die too young. Our vision for the strategy is simple yet ambitious: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy includes tangible actions to improve access to healthcare; provide the right support to enable men to make healthier choices; develop healthy living and working conditions; foster strong social, community and family networks; address societal norms; and tackle health challenges and conditions. By addressing the broader barriers that prevent men from accessing support, including the stigma surrounding mental health and suicide, we can take meaningful steps towards reducing avoidable deaths and ensuring that every man feels able to seek help when he needs it most.
Today, through the men’s health strategy, we are launching a groundbreaking partnership with the Premier League to tackle male suicide and improve health literacy, building on the Premier League’s Together Against Suicide campaign.
Chris Evans
Like me, the Minister represents a rugby stronghold and he will know of instances of ex-sports players committing suicide. We have already spoken about some high-profile cases, including Gary Speed and Ricky Hatton, but there are others who stop playing at lower levels and then develop feelings of isolation and lack of identity. When the Minister speaks to the Premier League and other sporting institutions, will he ensure that ex-sportsmen have the necessary support once they retire from the game?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether there is a connection, but it is possible that some of the perhaps more macho attitudes in some sporting environments are connected to the difficulties that some men—particularly men in those environments—have in reaching out, talking and being honest and open about their feelings. There may well be a connection. However, I hope that other sporting federations—the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union or whichever sporting association it might be—will look at what the Premier League is doing, and that we will perhaps see a blossoming of these initiatives across other sports and sporting disciplines.
The Premier League’s reach is unmatched. The partnership will engage men who are less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence, meeting them in spaces that they trust, rather than waiting for them to access traditional health services.
Dr Luke Evans
It is great to hear about the Together Against Suicide partnership with the Premier League, but will the Minister explain how it works? Having looked at the details, it appears to be run in conjunction with the Samaritans. Is extra funding coming from the Premier League or from the Government to run the scheme? If the Samaritans provide the signposting, how are they being supported? In essence, it looks like an area to people together. Is that correct?
Stephen Kinnock
There are 11 premier league clubs that have signed up so far. The most visual way in which the partnership will manifest itself is through the advertising hoardings, which will be given over for periods of the game to advertise our Every Mind Matters campaign. That will offer talking therapies and an online mental health tool that we have developed. Anybody in the stadium—often there are 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 spectators—can see that information flashing up. In some stadiums, there will also be mental health experts—wearing visible materials to show who they are and what they do—who people can come and talk to. The scheme is quite devolved, so each club will do things in a slightly different way. The Premier League is covering all the costs, so this is an entirely Premier League-funded partnership, with us providing the content, the steering and the opportunity to engage with the programmes, and the clubs are looking after the rest.
Chris Vince
That is a really exciting initiative. Is there scope for it to be extended beyond premier league clubs to lower-league clubs, down to Harlow Town? If it is successful, will the Minister talk to the English Football Association about lower-league clubs taking part?
Stephen Kinnock
Absolutely—we believe the sky is the limit. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, we are clear that we see this as the first step. Clearly, premier league clubs are high profile, so hopefully people will look at the partnership, learn from it and say, “Yes, that is something that we can do.” Fingers crossed that it takes off.
As part of the men’s health strategy launch, we also announced the suicide prevention support pathfinders programme for middle-aged men. The programme will invest up to £3.6 million over three years in areas of England where middle-aged men face the greatest risk of suicide. It will support new ways of embedding effective, tailored support for middle-aged men and create clearer, more joined-up pathways into existing local suicide prevention systems. For over a decade, middle-aged men have faced the highest suicide rates of any age group. They account for around a quarter of all deaths by suicide in England. That is a shocking statistic, and it is why middle-aged men are identified as a priority group in the suicide prevention strategy for England.
It is important that we do not simplify the picture. The national confidential inquiry into suicide and safety in mental health found that of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide, 67% had been in contact with health and partner agencies in the three months before they took their own life, and 43% had been in contact with primary care services in the three months before they died. That tells us something vital: a significant proportion of men do reach out, presenting an opportunity to make the most of every interaction with men who may be at risk of suicide. Our responsibility as a Government is to ensure that when men take that step, the services they encounter are accessible, joined up and genuinely equipped to meet their needs. That is what the pathfinders programme will do.
By improving engagement with healthcare and improving access to the right support, we can begin to dismantle the stigma that continues to cost too many men their lives. In April this year, NHS England published its “Staying safe from suicide” guidance, which strengthens the approach to suicide prevention across mental health settings. It promotes a holistic, person-centred approach, rather than using stratification tools to determine risk. The guidance directly aligns with the aim of our suicide prevention strategy and reflects our commitment to continually improving mental health services, particularly by identifying risk assessment as an area where we must go further.
The implementation of the guidance has been supported by a new NHS England e-learning module, which launched in September, to help ensure that staff across services are confident and equipped to apply the guidance in practice. The NHS medium-term planning framework, published last month, states that in 2026-27, integrated care boards must
“ensure that mental health practitioners across all providers”
undertake the e-learning
“and deliver care in line with the Staying safe from suicide guidance.”
The Minister with responsibility for women’s health and mental health, who sits in the other place, wrote directly to crucial stakeholders across the sector—including the chief coroner, the Charity Commission, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, and the British Psychological Society—to promote the guidance and the e-learning module, and I am pleased to say that the response has been overwhelmingly positive. By way of example, the Charity Commission circulated information about the e-learning to around 5,000 charities involved in suicide prevention or mental health support—an encouraging demonstration of the sector’s commitment to improving safety and support for those at risk.
More widely, we are improving mental health services so that people are met with the right support. We recognise that expanding and equipping the workforce will take time, but I am pleased to say that we have hired almost 7,000 extra mental health workers since July 2024. Mental health remains a core priority for the NHS. That is why we are investing £688 million to transform services, including £26 million to support people in mental health crisis.
As part of the 10-year health plan’s commitment to transforming how the whole health and care system works, we are introducing neighbourhood mental health care for adults, which will bring community, crisis and in-patient care together in a single, seamless offer. Six neighbourhood mental health centres are already operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, offering open-access support to anyone who needs it. Co-delivered with primary care, the voluntary and faith sectors, and local specialist services, the centres make it easier for people to seek help in their own communities, without judgment or barriers.
Stephen Kinnock
I am very tight on time, but I will give way briefly before wrapping up.
Sojan Joseph
A recent study shows that many people are reaching out to artificial intelligence chatbots to seek mental health support. The Government are putting so many new initiatives in place; does the Minister agree that we need to publicise them more, so that people do not seek incorrect information from AI chatbots?
Stephen Kinnock
I absolutely agree. This is a human challenge, and humans need to take it on. That is what we will do. There is nothing more human that going to a premier league football match, so I hope that that will be a good way of raising awareness, just as my hon. Friend says.
As we reflect on the lives lost and the families forever changed, we reaffirm our commitment to tackling stigma, improving support and ensuring that everyone feels able to speak up, ask for help and be heard. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park again for raising this crucial issue.
Sarah Olney
May I say what a privilege it has been to have this debate today, not least because it has given me an opportunity to highlight the work of my friend and constituent Philip Pirie? It has been a wonderful tribute both to his hard work and to the memory of his son, Tom.
It has also been a privilege to hear the contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. I particularly want to thank the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for sharing their personal experiences, which provided a moving context to the debate.
It was great to hear about various initiatives from the Minister, not least because Mr Pirie has directly contributed to some of them, but I reiterate my call for a public health campaign. Particular groups are at risk. The farming community has been mentioned a number of times, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Horsham (John Milne). The hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned young people in schools and universities, and other hon. Members mentioned gambling and drug addiction. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned social media, and we know that veterans and carers are also at risk. Many hon. Members made the point that so many people are not in touch with mental health services when they commit suicide. That is why we need a public health campaign to reach much more widely.
I thank all the hon. Members who contributed today with examples of successful community initiatives, which the Minister might want to look to when he is planning a public health campaign. My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and the hon. Members for Maidstone and Malling, for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), for Caerphilly, for Rugby (John Slinger) and for Harlow all talked about amazing things going on in their communities.
Finally, I want quickly to mention the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), among other hon. Members. MPs are such great advocates for mental health in their communities, and we should all take that forward.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Access to Healthcare: Bracknell Forest
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to healthcare in Bracknell Forest.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Minister for Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for her engagement on this important issue.
As local MPs, we all hear on the doorstep and at our coffee mornings about the importance of the ability to access timely, good-quality and local healthcare, and the impact not just on individuals, but on our communities more broadly, when the standard is not met. What those who work in our health and social care system do day in, day out touches all our lives and families. I thank those in Bracknell Forest and across the country who work in our NHS and wider health and care system for everything they do. I must declare an interest: my brother and sister-in-law are both NHS doctors.
These are challenging times for the NHS. Chronic under-resourcing after 14 years of Conservative austerity has left too many unable to access the care they need and has prevented the system from evolving to reflect the needs of today’s Britain. But although the NHS may be down, it is not out. While other parties threaten the very principle of the NHS—that care should be available to everyone and free at the point of use—the Government are investing in the NHS and putting in place the reforms we need. We have already seen those efforts bearing fruit, with the first cuts to waiting lists in 15 years, the recruitment of 2,500 more GPs and the creation of 5 million extra appointments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the issue of GPs. Does he agree that access to healthcare must begin with access to the local GP surgery, and that the Government must prioritise training and retraining GPs to ensure that people can access their GP and do not head straight to emergency care at the local hospital when it is not necessary? GPs first—then, everybody else can do better.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member predicts where I am going with my speech. I am sure that the issues in Bracknell Forest are similar to those in Northern Ireland. As I will say, it is important that we have seen changes in the way GPs operate in England.
The 10-year health plan for England represents a once-in-a-generation chance to reform and rebuild the health system. It is underpinned by the three radical shifts of hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. In Bracknell Forest, we have already seen the Government’s commitment to moving healthcare to the community through the announcement of funding for the Frimley Park hospital rebuild, which was promised under the last Government but never funded, despite unsafe reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete making up about 65% of the current building. The funding will go directly to help to deliver a hospital that is safe, modern and equipped to deal with the demands facing our healthcare system today.
I thank the Minister for meeting me yesterday, and on many other occasions, to discuss the rebuild, and for all the work that has gone into progressing the project behind the scenes, but as she knows I remain concerned that Frimley Health NHS foundation trust is still not in a position to announce the location of the new hospital, despite several deadlines already having been set and missed. I urge the trust to make that announcement as soon as practically possible, so that constituents can have the visibility and transparency they need on the delivery of those plans.
Bracknell Forest residents are determined that the new hospital addresses the existing issues with access to Frimley Park hospital, including insufficient parking, and that it should be as close as possible to the current site. Better access by public transport also needs to be baked into the design. Constituents also have concerns about the ongoing need to rebuild the Royal Berkshire hospital. I take this opportunity to reassure them that I am as keen as they are to see that delivered as soon as possible, and I will continue to push for it in this place.
As the 10-year plan sets out, the future of our NHS cannot be delivered just through hospitals. Care needs to be embedded in our communities, so I am delighted that Skimped Hill health centre—or Bracknell Forest centre for health, as I believe it will officially be known—is now in the final build stages. Once completed, the centre will bring together in one place several services in the centre of Bracknell, including two GP practices, maternity services and children’s services, rooting healthcare in the community and breaking down the bureaucratic barriers to access both for patients and for service providers.
A key element of the shift from hospital to community is ensuring that all health spaces are used to their full potential. Brants Bridge in Bracknell spans both Frimley and Berkshire healthcare trusts and offers a range of services, including X-rays, urgent care, dialysis and chemotherapy. However, constituents regularly tell me that they struggle to access the space, or are turned away and directed to A&E for arbitrary reasons. The centre is a resource with huge potential, but I fear we are not utilising it to its fullest. I would therefore welcome a review of the services offered by Brants Bridge, as well as of its accessibility, to better support the Government’s ambitions for community care.
As we build the homes of the future, it is important that we match them with the health infrastructure needed to support them. It is fantastic to see that with the new Skimped Hill health centre and, although it is not in my constituency, I will also mention the new Binfield health and community centre. But Bracknell Forest has a shortage of GPs, with 1,874 patients for every GP, so it is important that we keep developing primary healthcare provision to serve our growing population. We also have a mismatch between pharmacy need and provision, with some areas with the greatest need, such as Bullbrook, relying on just one pharmacy.
I recently met with both Forest Health primary care network and Health Triangle PCN, which includes Ringmead, to discuss patient access, the 10-year plan and the implementation of the new GP contracts. I was pleased to hear thar Ringmead has implemented a new booking system and, although not all patients have felt the benefits of that yet, it has been great to hear from many constituents that it has gone a long way to make accessing their local GP much easier. I stress, however, that we still have a way to go when it comes to ensuring that patients can access the right choice of appointment for their needs. For many, online appointments offer flexibility and convenience, but others want the reassurance of seeing their GP face to face.
In a local authority like Bracknell Forest it is also important to match healthcare provision to where people live, so that people are not forced to travel long distances to access their appointments. I have heard many residents share their frustrations at getting an appointment in Bracknell when they live in Sandhurst, and vice versa. Although I appreciate that that is sometimes unavoidable or about ensuring that healthcare can be accessed as quickly as possible, I would like more local appointments to be prioritised.
The aim in the 10-year plan to end the 8 am appointment rush resonates with many constituents who have, too many times, faced the stress of scrambling for an appointment while unwell and in need of treatment. I am pleased to see the Government delivering on that key ambition, but I am aware that the shift has come with operational challenges for primary healthcare providers when managing patients who book close to closing time. I know that healthcare professionals would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the teething issues can be addressed, so that the system works as well as possible for both patients and providers.
The Government’s ambition is rightly to raise the healthiest generation of children ever, and early intervention and community-focused care will play a crucial role in delivering that. As many colleagues know, I often speak about special educational needs and disabilities issues in this House, and with my constituents. SEND is not just an educational issue. Among many other things, it is a social issue, an equalities issue and, of course, a health issue. Across the country, children and adults wait far too long to access attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism assessments. The number of children waiting for an autism assessment is acknowledged to be high across all six Berkshire local authorities. In June 2025, there were 682 children aged between five and 18 in Bracknell Forest waiting for an assessment, and a further 241 adults were also waiting.
Berkshire healthcare NHS foundation trust has been overhauling its system to improve waiting times and deliver a better performance, and has recently been recognised as one of the top performing trusts in the country, but it will take time for the efforts of those reforms to be felt on the ground. The long waits involved mean that many are turning to private diagnosis, which risks creating a two-tier system in which those who can afford it receive a diagnosis and the support that follows and those who cannot are left to struggle. I fundamentally believe that young people should not need a diagnosis to access essential support. When parent carers, classroom teachers and the young person themselves can all see that there is need for more support, it should be made available, and the diagnosis can be worried about later.
As the Government develop their reforms to our broken SEND system, I want to see a shift away from a system that too often feels diagnosis-led, and towards one that is genuinely needs-led. Prioritising early intervention will enable quicker support and treatment and will improve young people’s quality of life and outcomes.
I recently hosted a series of roundtables with parent carers and practitioners to hear directly from my constituents what they want to see in a reformed SEND system, and I produced a report on their local concerns and perspectives. Many of those who contributed highlighted a need for joined-up, holistic working across agencies and service providers. Nationally, there is a chronic shortage of trained speech and language therapists and occupational therapists in our schools. That has deep and long-lasting consequences, locking young people out of fully accessing their education and preventing them from reaching their full potential. I urge the Government to recognise the importance of increasing recruitment and retention in those critical roles.
I also heard that it too often felt like health services were walking off the pitch and leaving everything to schools and the local authority. Although I recognise the importance of an education-led approach to reforms, local health services, including integrated health boards, need to be held accountable for the parts of the system they are responsible for.
I was delighted to welcome the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), to Bracknell last week to discuss these issues further and to share the voices of the parents, carers, professionals and young people whose experiences informed my report. Again, I thank those who contributed. I am pleased to have the chance to raise the issue in this health debate too.
I recently attended a dementia forum, hosted by Bracknell Forest council, which brought together dementia patients, their families and carers, healthcare professionals and social workers. It was fantastic to hear how a joined-up approach to offering health and social care was having a positive effect on outcomes for those living with dementia and their loved ones. I was also delighted recently to meet our local Admiral nurse, who works with patients experiencing early onset dementia and is supported by Dementia UK. I heard how important it is for the whole team of support around a person with early onset dementia to have access to their health record, enabling a more holistic approach to care. That is a fantastic example of best practice, and it has had a profound impact on patients and their families across Bracknell Forest.
Such community provision is essential if we are to meet our goal of developing a genuinely neighbourhood-led health service. There is much that the voluntary sector can contribute. For example, local mental health services are profoundly stretched, and young people face long waits for support through child and adolescent mental health services. In Bracknell, I am proud that we have excellent local organisations such as Youthline, which was just awarded a King’s award, and Create Hope, which works closely with schools to deliver counselling for young people. I would like them to be supported more by the health system, including through commissioning. Young people across the country face unprecedented challenges, and community organisations play a vital role in advancing a preventive approach to the development of longer-term mental health problems and providing the support on the ground that young people desperately need.
A healthcare system fit for the future must embrace the technological age we live in, and the Government’s ambition to shift the NHS from analogue to digital is commendable. The lack of reliable information-sharing across services is a familiar barrier for both patients and professionals in accessing and delivering the best healthcare, so I am strongly in favour of the Government’s work on the single patient record, which is currently in a test phase. It will play a key role in our 10-year health plan.
The single patient record will lower barriers to access by ensuring that healthcare professionals have a clear, unified view of patient health records, thereby enabling a safer, faster and more co-ordinated approach across services and ensuring that both patients and healthcare providers can access the information they need as seamlessly as possible. That is particularly important in an area like Bracknell, which benefits from services delivered by both the Frimley and the Royal Berkshire NHS trusts—we get the best of both systems.
When patients walk into a health centre, GP clinic or hospital, they do not want to have to think about which ICB or trust is providing the service and whether their data can be shared with the other parts of the health system that they access. They just want to be treated, and to know that every part of the system will understand the treatment they have received. Instead, I often hear residents in Bracknell Forest complaining that their blood test at the local hospital has not been shared with their local GP, or that the care provided by Bracknell Forest council does not speak to the care they access through the NHS. Will the Minister provide an update on the progress towards a single patient record, and set out what it will mean for my constituents in Bracknell who rely on overlapping health systems?
Building a health system fit for today’s needs is a challenge, but one that I know the Government are determined to embrace. I recognise and welcome the progress that has already been made, and I urge the Minister to continue in the spirit of innovation and ambition to drive forward critical changes. We must ensure that flexibility, early intervention and a community-first approach are placed at the heart of our reforms, and that barriers to access are considered carefully so that no community is left behind. I hope the Minister can take these concerns back to the Department to ensure that they are fed into the Government’s plans to rebuild our health system, and that Bracknell Forest’s voice is heard loudly as the ambitious work continues to build an NHS fit for the future.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this important debate. He has made absolutely sure that the voice of Bracknell Forest is heard loud and clear, both here and at the Department of Health and Social Care. We know that the NHS faces pressure all over the country, including in Bracknell Forest and the south-east of England. I also thank his brother and sister-in-law for their work to ensure that people get a good service.
Our 10-year health plan is a plan to fix the issues, with the three shifts improving access to healthcare for everyone, no matter where they live or how much they earn. We are seeing improvements, with 5 million more elective appointments, 135,000 more cancer diagnoses within the 28-day target, and waiting lists cut by more than 230,000 since we came into office. Ambulance response times are down, including in Bracknell Forest, which has seen significant improvements in category 2 response times compared with last year. Twelve-hour waits in A&E are also down nationally and there are 2,500 more GPs. Over 100 community diagnostic centres have been opened at weekends and evenings, and new surgical hubs are helping to tackle the backlog.
Let me turn to the important local issues that my hon. Friend raised. First, on RAAC, the safety of our patients and staff will always come first, which is why we continue working to eradicate RAAC across the NHS estate, backed by £440 million this year. It is because of that investment that we can continue to invest in crucial RAAC mitigation safety work at Frimley Park hospital. However, our investment in local hospitals goes significantly further, with a new Frimley Park hospital being planned. Since he became a Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend has been very assiduous and active in meeting me and those in the Government talk about this issue. I know he has been working closely with local leaders as well; I was able to meet them in advance of this debate, to understand their position.
I am pleased to say that that work is progressing and remains on track against the timeline set out in the new hospital programme plan for implementation, with construction expected to commence between 2028 and 2029. I also assure my hon. Friend, other local Members and the public that we are working closely with the Frimley Park trust on the location of the new hospital. I know that he appreciates that we are currently in a commercially sensitive phase of the process, but the trust expects to be able to provide further updates soon. My hon. Friend’s constituents will also have an interest in the Royal Berkshire hospital, so let me be clear that we remain firmly committed to its delivery in wave 3 of the programme.
My hon. Friend raised special educational needs, and I know from my constituency that this affects Members across the House. I acknowledge the concerns about SEND support in Bracknell Forest, and I welcome the urgent local plans that are in place to address the issue in the region. It is right that my hon. Friend met the SEND Minister. At the national level, the Government are determined to deliver meaningful reform that stands the test of time, rebuilds the confidence of families with lived experience and puts partnerships at the heart of our solutions.
Furthermore, our 10-year health plan sets out the core principle of early intervention and support—including without the need for diagnosis—for children and young people with SEND. We are also accelerating the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to reach full national coverage by the end of this Parliament. Going further, the first 50 young futures hubs will bring together services to support children and young people with early access advice and wellbeing intervention.
The Government recognise the pressures on elective care. That is why we are delivering millions of additional appointments and reducing waiting lists up and down the country, and the local picture is promising. I am pleased to report that, since July 2024, Frimley’s acute trust has lowered its referral-to-treatment waiting lists by over 17,000 and more than halved the number of patients waiting for over a year. Local people will welcome that, but there is much more to be done. It is a vital first step in improving those services.
Community health services also play a critical role in reducing pressures across the system; my hon. Friend made that point and paid tribute to the Admiral nurse and the role of Dementia UK in his constituency. We are working closely with NHS England to improve access to community health services, including in Bracknell Forest, helping to deliver our shift from the hospital to the community. That is important work with the voluntary and community sector, and those third sector organisations are crucial to that. We are seeing tangible results. My hon. Friend talked about the multimillion-pound Skimped Hill development in the town centre, opening in February 2026. That will see new community health services, including maternity services and a new GP practice serving the people of Bracknell Forest. It is a real trailblazer for the sorts of thing that we expect in neighbourhood health services, so well done to all those making that happen for local people.
My hon. Friend mentioned pharmacies, which are an absolutely integral part of the community. That is why in 2025 and 2026 we have increased funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework to more than £3 billion, representing the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS at that time.
Improvements to primary care do not stop there. I am pleased to report that we are investing over £1 billion extra into GP services, including in the primary care workforce and funding for infrastructure improvements, ensuring that places such as Bracknell Forest get the resources and GPs they need. The local picture relating to access to GPs is strong, with more than 90% of people in Bracknell seeing a GP within 14 days of requesting an appointment. That figure is reinforced by the positive feedback that practices are receiving from their patients. The opportunity to request appointments online, which has been available since 1 October, is also helping with that 8 am scramble; I was able to take advantage of that myself in my own patch. That online access is a real benefit for local people. If there are any particular local issues—as I know there are—it is the role of the ICB to work with local practices to make sure that those are resolved, which is what local people expect.
As a result of these broad national and local efforts, over 10 million more appointments have been delivered in England this year compared with last year. Dentistry is an issue across all our constituencies and my hon. Friend is right to raise it. We are recruiting more dentists in the areas that need them most to improve the oral health of children and to deliver additional dental appointments in places such as Bracknell Forest, where I am pleased to report that an additional 3,300 appointments have been commissioned across 2025 and 2026. All of that will deliver better dental care for everyone in England, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I welcome and share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the single patient record. A key thing that came out of our consultation on the 10-year plan was the desire of patients not to have continually to repeat their story and the desire of clinicians to be able to see more of the patient’s record. If staff providing care can see a single, accurate and up-to-date record that draws together the key information from different services, wherever that is needed, that will deliver significant benefits not just for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but for everyone in England, not least in the time and effort saved and the greater accuracy and appropriateness of treatment. We are currently building three proofs of concept to test the different technical ways that we might deliver the single patient record and to prove a clear pathway to taking that forward. I am happy to engage with my hon. Friend on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to Parliament on behalf of his constituents. It is hard to cover everything that affects local people, but I think we have done a pretty good job. I hope that my response shows that the Government are seriously committed to addressing the important issues that he raised on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that we are embracing that challenge. We are determined to deliver innovation, and we have the ambition to make the health service fit for the future. That is the manifesto commitment that he and I were elected on, and that is what the Government are absolutely determined to do. I look forward to working further on making these services better for the people of Bracknell Forest.
Question put and agreed to.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for people with myalgic encephalomyelitis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. Myalgic encephalomyelitis is a complex, chronic condition affecting multiple body systems. There is currently no cure or established treatment. The symptoms of ME go far beyond chronic fatigue or being very tired; the sickest patients lie alone in darkened rooms, sometimes unable to move or to speak—or, in the very worst cases, to swallow or to digest food. Even at the mildest end of this condition, people with ME who once had lives, hopes and dreams for the future live a shadow of their former lives.
More than five years on from the start of the covid pandemic, it is timely to note how the numbers affected have increased. Approximately half of those with long covid go on to meet the diagnostic criteria for ME, so it is now estimated that 1.35 million people live with ME or ME-like symptoms. That includes healthcare workers, teachers and other key workers who kept our country running at the height of the pandemic. Add in carers, and even more are directly affected.
Importantly, there is a gendered dimension, with women five times more likely than men to develop ME. Despite the devastating toll of the condition, people with ME have endured decades of substandard and sometimes downright unsafe healthcare, with pitifully little funding for research. In spite of the lack of robust evidence to this effect, ME is treated as though the condition is psychiatric.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing this important debate. According to at least one survey, about 66% of sufferers require some form of social care and, as is the case for some of my constituents, it is their own families who put their life on hold to provide that care. Will my hon. Friend join me in stating that this is just one example of how the Government must address social care if they are going to get health and social care right?
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more. For far too long, patients have been dismissed, and that care element is incredibly important, because it affects so many people.
In July, the Department of Health and Social Care published the final delivery plan for ME, a cross-Government strategy aiming to improve attitudes, bolster research and better lives. It included some positive steps: new small grants for research into repurposed medications, and the development of a new service specification for mild and moderate ME. However, overall, the consensus of the charities and patient advocates I have spoken to is clear: the delivery plan falls far short of what was needed.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about plans in England, because in my constituency we were privileged to have an incredible ME specialist nurse, Keith Anderson, who helped countless people. Sadly, he passed away two years ago, and since then there has been no specialist support in Fife—indeed, there is no specialist ME doctor or nurse in the whole of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things any plan needs to consider is training, so that, no matter where someone is in the country, they can get access to a specialist?
Tessa Munt
I agree. In fact, we do not just need specialists; we also need training for GPs and other healthcare workers.
I will highlight four areas in which we need to see much more from the Government going forward. Given the gravity of the situation, I would appreciate it if the Minister could arrange for written responses to a number of my points.
The first area is funding. If the delivery plan felt threadbare, that is because no substantive new funding was attached to it. Before the plan was published, all 72 Lib Dem MPs signed a letter expressing our concerns about the anticipated lack of funding, which of course came to pass. To put it bluntly, what patients need is transformed NHS care and a step change in research. Neither is likely to happen without investing some money.
The case for investment is clear. I urge the Minister to see this not as a sunk cost, but as an investment in a group of people who are desperate to contribute to society. We know that one in five working-age adults are out of the workforce, many because of health problems, yet remarkably there was no modelling of the demography of those living with ME for the delivery plan exercise, and neither the Department of Health and Social Care nor the Department for Work and Pensions has an estimate of what the neglect of people with ME is costing our economy.
I would like to look at some of the figures. The most recent estimate of the economic impact of ME was for 2014-15—10 years ago—and was carried out by 20/20health. The cost was then calculated at £3.3 billion annually, based on only 260,000 people living with ME. With many more affected following the pandemic and a decade of inflation, that cost will now be much higher. Even the most conservative estimate of current numbers living with ME, excluding cases linked to long covid, puts them at 404,000 patients. Does the Minister accept, using that conservative estimate and adjusting for inflation, the annual economic impact of ME today is likely to be at least £7 billion? If those living with ME-like symptoms following covid are included, we could be approaching an annual cost of £20 billion. Surely it is time for the Government properly to cost the impact of a condition that affects so many, rather than brush it under the carpet, and to invest accordingly.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case. She will be aware that there is still significant uncertainty among many clinicians as to whether this should be treated a medical rather than a psychological condition. Does she agree that, because of the gravity and extent of cases around the country, it is important that medical services are supported to deal with those patients and their symptoms?
Tessa Munt
I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Most people I speak to say that ME has nothing to do with psychiatry. We now have evidence from Edinburgh, which I will go on to in a moment, to explain exactly why that is the case.
Our counterparts in Germany have grasped the importance and scale of the challenge. Just last week, the German Government announced a national decade against post-infectious diseases, with a particular focus on ME and long covid. In Germany, an estimated 1.5 million people are living with ME or long covid. The German Government have rightly recognised post-infectious diseases such as ME as one of the greatest public health challenges of the 21st century. Last week, they committed €500 million—around £440 million—over the next decade into research to understand the causes of post-infectious diseases and to develop treatments.
Will the Minister confirm whether Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care have discussed that recent funding announcement and the logic behind it? I would love nothing more than to see the UK Government come up with a comparable level of commitment—or will the Government wait a decade for the German Government’s conclusions before taking action?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing this debate forward. In Northern Ireland, the figures for ME have unfortunately risen from 7,500 to 12,500 in the past few years. We have no clinical lead, no specialist services and no commission care pathways. We need research. Queen’s University Belfast is really good with research partnerships. Does the hon. Lady agree we should spend the money on research and find the cure? It has been said that the cure for cancer will come in 10 years’ time. The cure for ME could come too if research money were put into it.
Tessa Munt
I absolutely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. The second area where I would urge the Government to go further is support for people with severe and very severe ME. It is estimated that around one in four people with ME are severely affected. ME is perhaps the only condition where the sicker someone becomes, the less care they receive from the NHS. The recent prevention of future deaths report focused on the tragic case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, describing NHS care for severe ME as “non-existent”.
In my work on this issue, I have collaborated closely with #ThereForME, a campaign founded by two women, Karen and Emma, who are carers to partners with very severe ME. It can be difficult to comprehend the depth of suffering that ME can bring in its most extreme forms. With his permission, Karen has shared details with me about of her husband James’s day-to-day life.
Before developing ME, James, in his 30s, lived a full life and was a civil servant. Today he is completely bed-bound and spends 99% of his day alone in a dark room, unable to tolerate any noise, light or stimulation. He is hardly able to communicate and is so sensitive to touch that, despite his suffering, his wife Karen is unable to give him a hug or hold his hand. Despite an acute level of need, James is receiving next to no care from the NHS. Karen tells me that her biggest fear is that he deteriorates to the point of needing lifesaving care. She cannot feel confident that the NHS will provide it.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech. One of my constituents, an NHS nurse, suffers with ME. He cannot play with his children, walk his dog or undertake basic activities. When he went to the NHS, he got a referral, but was told that it would be nine months before he got an appointment, which forced him to consider private options. An NHS nurse is having to use private healthcare to get results—this situation is untenable, is it not?
Tessa Munt
It is not only untenable, but completely absurd. In September 2024, on World Patient Safety Day, over 200 healthcare workers were so concerned about NHS care for ME, and particularly care for severe and very severe ME, that they wrote a letter to the Health Secretary calling for immediate action to save lives. That letter was sent 14 months ago. I am sorry to say that very little has changed since, and they did not receive a response.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to quickly mention one of those 25% of people with ME who are severely affected: my constituent Alice. She cannot leave her room, and is scared to call for treatment in case she has to go into hospital: she has been into hospital twice, but people there are not sure how to treat her and they make it worse. I simply want to empathise on behalf of my constituents, one of whom is one of the very severe cases the hon. Lady is talking about.
Tessa Munt
Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.
Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.
Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that
“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”
However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to
“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.
I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.
I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?
The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.
Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.
Tessa Munt
Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.
The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.
A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.
The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.
The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?
The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?
Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.
Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.
“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.
And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”
I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.
Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.
Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.
Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. It is clear that we need a three-minute time limit if we are to get everybody in, but I cannot guarantee that we will.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I declare my interest as chair of both the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis and the all-party parliamentary group on long covid. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for bringing this important debate to the House; we work together on the APPG on ME.
ME and related conditions such as long covid are among the most devastating illnesses of our time, yet they remain some of the most poorly understood and most neglected. Unless we confront this misunderstanding head on, we will never deliver the change that patients so desperately need.
This issue is personal to me. In 2020, I contracted long covid. The infection was mild, but the aftermath was devastating, and it changed my life forever. With long covid, I developed ME, so I know the exhaustion, isolation and gaslighting that patients face. I cannot know for sure why I improved, but I believe that one reason was early recognition. I give a big shout-out to my friend Shelley Guest, who saw that my symptoms mirrored her own. She gave me books; she shouted at me, and told me to pace myself. I am forever grateful to her.
That raises a critical question: if diagnosed and supported early enough, could ME’s symptoms be managed to the point of recovery or partial recovery? My journey is not over yet. That is why research and recognition are not optional; they are essential.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work chairing the two all-party groups. My constituent Janet contacted me about her son Richard, who was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome six months ago. He is still waiting for a proper referral. Does my hon. Friend agree that an early pathway is vital, and would she encourage the Minister to outline what form that might take?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I hear from so many constituents that, out of those suffering from any condition, people suffering from ME have the lowest quality of life. Is it not also the case that people simply do not understand what ME is?
Jo Platt
I completely agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, there is confusion about what chronic fatigue is and what ME is; there needs to be differentiation and clarification on those conditions. We all understand chronic fatigue, but ME is different. It is not just tiredness; they are complex issues. Many of those who are severely affected cannot even sit upright. They are confined to darkened rooms, often tube-fed, cut off from the world and too often ignored by the very health system that is meant to protect them.
Long covid has only added to that burden. Millions are affected, half of whom meet the criteria for ME. Next Tuesday, Parliament will host the first drop-in session of the Overlapping Illness Alliance, which will raise awareness of ME, long covid and related conditions, and I urge colleagues from across the House to attend.
The Government’s ME delivery plan is a welcome step. NHS e-learning service specifications and small research grants are progress, but they are not enough, particularly for severe ME. The scale of the challenge demands ambition, accountability and strategic investment. We need specialised NHS services for ME, we need urgent support for children whose education is disrupted, and we need co-ordinated action across health, social care, education and employment.
Research is central to progress. DecodeME has shown the brilliance of UK science, but funding remains far too limited. Germany has pledged €500 million to research with the aim of curing ME by the next decade. We need to be just as ambitious, but we must also confront the misinformation and bias on ME that has plagued us for decades. Patients are dying from nutritional failure because there is no commissioned service for severe ME. Some spend hundreds of pounds in hospital on private care without a proper pathway. Lives are at risk now and we cannot wait for long-term provision while patients suffer.
That is why, alongside the APPG, I am calling for the commissioning of specialised NHS services for severe and very severe ME with expertise in nutritional failure, and I would welcome the chance to meet the Government to discuss immediate solutions that can save lives today. Will the Minister commit to improving data collection so that we can better understand risks and create the foundations for effective care? The Government have taken steps in the right direction, but more must be done. As chair of both APPGs, I will continue to work with the community and the Government to do that.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for calling this debate.
I would like to use my short time to tell the story of a young man who made me understand the tragedy of ME six years ago. He was a very promising first-year student at Durham University called Tom. He was on track to get a first in maths. He was a big hockey player, but in his second year, he started struggling, first to walk upstairs and to climb hills, and eventually he found that he could not wash himself, eat by himself or even read. Then, to his enormous frustration, he dropped out in his third year. When all his friends were starting a new life with their first job, he had to stay at home and go through the nightmare of first trying to get a diagnosis and get someone to agree that he had a problem, and then trying to get treatment for it.
Tom felt that he was going in circles: doctors were not really persuaded and he was not getting any answers. He was very lucky because he had two remarkable parents, Alex and Denise, who could afford to go to America. In fact, they moved to America and they got him enrolled on clinical trials. This story has a positive ending, because six years on, he is doing incredibly well. He is actually thriving; he has a job and a partner, and his life is back on track—except, sadly, in America rather than here.
As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, there are 400,000 people with ME or with long covid symptoms that are like severe ME. For some of them, it is already too late. Maeve Boothby O’Neill and Sarah Lewis tragically lost their lives, and coroners issued prevention of future deaths notices.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sarah Lewis was my constituent. I have here the prevention of future deaths report that was issued after the inquest. She took her own life, but was severely ill with ME. One thing that comes through very strongly is that she did not feel she was believed or taken seriously, or that her symptoms were recognised by the medical profession. It is so important that we challenge the medical profession to take this more seriously.
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for talking about that very sad case. I actually think that the NHS is better than it was because of long covid.
The real cause for hope is Edinburgh University’s DecodeME study, which the chief executive of Action for ME, Sonya Chowdhury, described to me as being like a treasure hunt map with eight crosses where there is a genetic code that matches ME, but where we then have to go and dig up that treasure. That is what is now waiting to happen, and why funding is so important.
Ultimately, with the quality of research in this country, there should be no need for anyone to have to go to the United States or Germany for their treatment. During the pandemic, more lives were saved through treatments and vaccines discovered in this country than any other country in the world. We have amazing research happening here.
My plea to the Government is this: the last Government started the process by ignoring some of the scepticism in the medical community about whether ME was really a serious condition. It would be fantastic, and it would give so much hope, if this Government could now finish the job and invest in research that will transform the lives of so many people like Tom.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. A constituent recently wrote to me:
“ME has taken almost everything from me. I can no longer work, I am mainly confined to my chair or bed and, on the rare occasion that I leave the house for medical appointments, I need to use a wheelchair or walker and it often results in PEM”,
or post-exertional malaise. This was the sentence that really stayed with me: “ME has taken almost everything from me.” That seems to sum up the decimating effects of ME for the 25% of sufferers who experience the most severe symptoms. ME takes and then it takes some more, until in too many tragic cases the patient dies.
The fate of patients with severe ME has been brought home to me through my involvement with my constituent Debbie Seymour, once a working mother of two but now into her third year of being bedbound in a dark room and principally cared for by her incredible mum Sylvia, who is in her 80s. Although nurses are offering practical support, there remains a lack of knowledge about severe ME among healthcare providers and allied professions—particularly about the nature of the key diagnostic symptom of the disease, PEM.
Too often, sufferers of severe ME are required to fit into NHS pathways and procedures that suit the system but take little account of the human being at the centre of them. I welcome the Government’s delivery plan on ME. One of the stated aims is for the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to explore whether there should be a specialised service for very severe ME. NHS England is in the process of being dismantled, so could the Minister confirm in her summing up that that exploration will still go ahead? The desperate experiences of so many people highlight a lack of research into the disease. Perhaps the Minister can reassure my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby that there is a future in which the ringfenced funding granted for research into other illnesses can be extended to ME.
In conclusion, I have felt helpless when it comes to supporting my constituents who suffer from severe ME, and their families and carers. I am putting my faith in this Labour Government to drive forward the research to find a cure for this devastating disease and to improve specialist care for seriously ill ME patients such as Debbie, before it is too late.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate and for her campaigning on this issue. In the brief time I have today, I will share the story of Iona, who was finally diagnosed with ME in 2019 after being unwell since 2014. Her ME comes with a range of horrible symptoms from physical and mental fatigue to muscle weakness. She was housebound for four years and cannot do anything independently. However, she told me that the biggest barrier to support is other people’s limited or incorrect knowledge of ME, which is damaging. She says:
“As a chronically ill young woman…I am constantly looked down on and dismissed, while at the same time expected to act as if I am not disabled”.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
One of my constituents, Nick, has ME and has described feeling as though he is stuck in a well without anyone to pull him out. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be more action from Government, the NHS, businesses, schools and colleges to counter the misunderstanding and neglect that ME sufferers receive?
Adam Dance
I agree. It is really important that the Government provide more support for ME, because it affects the lives of a lot of people.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, from one Adam to another. I want to give a shout out to ME Group Staffordshire, which does wonderful work in supporting my constituents and people in the surrounding areas, and does so much to challenge the stigma that many people living with ME face on a daily basis, as the hon. Gentleman talked about. As the Minister looks to provide the support that we are all calling for today, I hope that she will consider extending it to those groups and communities that support people with ME, including some of my constituents.
Adam Dance
I agree that we need lots more support groups across the country. It is really good that the hon. Member has one in his constituency.
Iona’s school offered her no help; indeed, it told her that she would fail all her GCSEs. She went to her GP and other doctors many times but was told that she was “anxious and did not know it”, that she “did not want to go to school”, that she “was depressed” or even that “nothing was wrong” with her at all. Anyone who knew Iona knew that that was ridiculous. She is a positive, determined, intelligent and hard-working person, and it is only because of her determination that she finally received support—she got it only because she and her family kept pushing for it. People should not have to be medics or administrative experts to get the support that they need.
Even after Iona received some support, limited knowledge meant that she was told to do graded exercise therapy, which did her more harm than good. Eventually, the Somerset ME service provided helpful advice and medical letters that unlocked support in education and from the council. However, that service is a short-term service that cannot provide medical care, and Iona has often found that GPs do not understand the nature of the service. Today, she still receives little or no medical help.
It is great that the NHS has rolled out training on ME, but people such as Iona who have ME and who have lost trust in the health system need to know how we can monitor the uptake of that training to change attitudes and reduce stigma among the medical profession. That is so important, yet more broadly the ME delivery plan lacks clear accountability structures, has no proper way to measure impact and has no clear deadline to meet. I hope that the Minister can respond to those concerns today.
Greater funding and support for research are also vital. Germany has pledged €500 million to research ME and find a cure for it. It is time that this country also stepped up and showed the same ambition. We owe Iona and all those with ME at least that much. In fact, Iona herself wants to contribute to such research and is now at university, studying hard after achieving fantastic results at school. People with ME are not asking for much; they just want to be believed and to receive the support they deserve. It is about time they got that support.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
With apologies to other Members who wished to speak, I now call the Lib Dem spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this vital debate on such an important issue as myalgic encephalomyelitis. This chronic condition completely changes people’s lives, as we have heard today.
My constituent, who loved her job as a nurse, was diagnosed with ME in 2019. She has been left unable to work, relies on a mobility scooter to get around and is often confined to her bed for days on end. Since her official diagnosis, she has experienced constant muscle pain all over and severe headaches that frequently prevent her from sleeping. Despite her battle with myriad health challenges, one GP asked her, “What do you expect me to do about it?” Reading that stopped me in my tracks but—even worse—that reaction is not isolated. I contacted the local NHS trust on behalf of my constituent, and its locally commissioned NHS chronic fatigue services, which include ME, have been suspended as they cannot cope with the number of referrals.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent mirrors that of my constituent Emily in Edinburgh. Even though health is devolved, we face the same situation. Does the hon. Lady agree that even though Edinburgh is leading the way in research—as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) said—we need to look into people’s experience of dealing with health services?
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I should say that interventions on the spokespeople will not lead to them having any additional time.
Helen Maguire
My constituent’s experience builds into the bigger picture of a healthcare system that is simply not set up to support those with the most complex and devastating conditions. People with ME who rightly rely on health professionals for advice, support and solutions cannot be abandoned just because their diagnosis does not fit into a one-size-fits-all treatment plan.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
We have heard just how little money is being spent on research, comparatively speaking. As has already been mentioned, the DecodeME study is identifying genetic signals linked to immune and neurological pathways, offering real clues to the biological mechanisms of this disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must finally adopt a strategic and properly funded research programme?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Although I welcome the Government’s final delivery plan for ME and chronic fatigue syndrome, and I recognise the contribution of the ME community in shaping it, I remain deeply concerned that the plan falls short of delivering the meaningful change that is urgently needed by people living with those conditions. I therefore reaffirm the calls rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. In particular, the plan fails to set out dedicated funding to encourage early career researchers to specialise in ME research, or strategies to keep established researchers in the field. Those things are vital to develop new pathways that enable people to better cope with their diagnosis and, most importantly, improve their quality of life.
Funding is also needed to step up education and training to improve understanding of the condition across the public sector and to pilot new approaches that strengthen the quality of care. Recent figures estimate that over 400,000 people in the UK have ME, and around 50% of the 1.9 million people in the UK with long covid are thought to have symptoms that are similar to ME. Those figures make it clear that there is a desperate need for research to develop better treatment options and training for doctors, carers and wider healthcare workers.
We cannot ignore the fact that making those changes is a big task. Under the previous Conservative Government, cuts only made supporting people harder—from slashing health services to letting wait times pile up and overseeing a horrifying breakdown of community services—so it is no wonder that more people are suffering without support. That is why I urge this Government to make sure that the final delivery plan delivers real change for people living with ME and invests properly in research to change the course of diagnosis and treatment for good. For my constituent and for people living with ME across the country, we must take serious action to ensure that their experience with the healthcare system is rooted in dignity and care.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I try to take a positive outlook. The one thing the pandemic did was shine a spotlight on the likes of long covid and ME, and I know from my medical career how difficult that can be. I would like to thank Sajid Javid, who in 2022 announced the plan for ME, and I congratulate the Minister because she brought it to fruition on 22 July 2025. There are some similarities between the NHS 10-year plan and the ME plan: the ME delivery plan is fantastic, and a lot of people agree with it, but, importantly, there has been a lack of delivery. Action for ME has said:
“The Plan also lacks clear accountability structures with no mechanisms to measure impact or deadlines to hit. We are concerned that despite this well-meaning Plan being published, it will have no material impact on the historically stigmatised and ignored ME community. Action for ME wants to work with MPs, Ministers and Officials to improve its implementation.”
It went on to say that the delivery plan on ME/CFS fails to include a “strategic approach” to ME research. However, that was not the only group to say so; the ME Association said:
“There is no clear ambition or strategy to drive consistent implementation of the NICE guideline recommendations”
across ICBs. It went on to say:
“Severe and very severe ME receives minimal attention, despite known risks during hospital admissions”.
It also said:
“Several of the Plan’s own deadlines have already passed, and it is unclear what progress has been made.”
In the short time that I have, I want to focus my questions on two areas: action and accountability. The first concerns the questions that those living with ME will have, particularly when it comes to the changes around the Department for Work and Pensions and what that will look like in the light of the imminent Timms review. I would be grateful to understand what plans the Government have for both Departments to discuss what this will look like, given the scale of the problems facing the 400,000-plus people with ME/CFS in this country.
Secondly, turning to the actual plan, we need to look at what actions will be delivered. I am keen to look at the section called “After publication of the FDP”, because it goes on to say that
“we will monitor the actions included in it. The DHSC secretariat will continue to engage with the Task and Finish Group in an appropriate form as required”.
Given the debate today, is that required, and what form will it take?
The document also goes on to say that a
“sub-group will be created to focus on improving care for those with ME/CFS.”
Has that group been created, and how many times has it met? It further states:
“We recognise the needs of those with ME/CFS and we remain dedicated to developing our approach as new research emerges and as we seek further engagement.”
Could I press the Minister on what that engagement is? Who is it with, and what does it look like? At the end of the day, there is a plan here and we do agree with it, but it is the actions and accountability within it that are truly going to make a difference.
ME may challenge the body, but it never diminishes a person’s worth or their hope that they carry. That is critical. When we have such a great plan, it is the action that is going to take it forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this debate, and pay tribute to her for her continued advocacy on behalf of people living with myalgic encephalomyelitis. Her work has ensured that the voices of those affected are heard at the highest levels of Government, and I am happy to accept her invitation to meet her and stakeholders, and the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), the chair of the APPG.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today, and I particularly acknowledge all the constituents they have referred to. They all deserve the very best care from our NHS. I will endeavour to respond to as many of the issues raised as I possibly can. If I have not covered something, my officials will take notes and follow up in writing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really grateful to the Minister. We know that, at the heart of this, we need to ensure that all clinicians have a basis of training, and that is certainly missing at the moment. We see misdiagnosis, and we see some provision, including fatigue clinics, providing the wrong interventions. Will she ensure that there is a strategy around training clinicians and making it mandatory?
Ashley Dalton
I will come later in my remarks to the training that is being rolled out as part of the delivery plan.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis—better known as ME—and chronic fatigue syndrome, which I will refer to from now on as ME/CFS, is a condition that affects an estimated 390,000 people in the UK. Its symptoms can be profoundly debilitating, impacting every aspect of daily life, from work and education to family and social life. For those with severe or very severe ME/CFS, even basic tasks such as sitting up, eating or speaking can become impossible. We recognise the devastating impact this condition has on individuals and families. For too long, people with ME/CFS have faced stigma, misunderstanding, disbelief and inconsistent care.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Minister is a passionate advocate for women’s health. Does she agree that the reason for this disease often being overlooked and for the stigma she has talked about is that women are five times more likely than men to get it? Will she support clear funding, accountability and deadlines within the welcome plan that has been delivered, and a service for very severe ME for all ICBs?
Ashley Dalton
I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, and I will cover some of them in my remarks. She will be aware that the women’s health strategy is currently being refreshed, so we hope to dovetail wherever possible.
I want to set out the steps that this Government are taking to change the misunderstanding, stigma and inconsistent care that patients have experienced. Through our ME/CFS final delivery plan, we will deliver better care, boost research and ensure that every person living with ME/CFS is treated with dignity and compassion.
First, let us acknowledge the reality. ME/CFS is a complex multi-system condition. Its fluctuating nature makes diagnosis and management challenging. Historically, services have been extremely varied, and in some cases patients have felt dismissed or rejected by the healthcare system. That is unacceptable. We have heard those concerns loud and clear through our extensive consultation on the interim delivery plan and through ongoing engagement with patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and charities. Last year’s prevention of future deaths report following the tragic death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill further highlighted the urgent need for reform, pointing to a lack of specialist beds and inadequate training for clinicians. We cannot and will not allow such failings to continue.
In July, we published the ME/CFS final delivery plan, marking a significant milestone in our commitment to improving lives. The plan is built around three core themes: boosting research, improving attitudes and education, and enhancing care and support. With a clear commitment to ensure that people with ME/CFS can live as independently as possible and see their overall quality of life enhanced, that plan will help us to take an important step towards achieving that, but we acknowledge that there is more to do. We will continue to build on the foundation of those actions well beyond the publication of the plan. It is the springboard—the beginning, not the end.
Although the final delivery plan does not include every suggestion received through the consultation responses or through the task and finish group, it does not mean that those proposals will not be considered in the future, subject to resource and funding. We look forward to continuing those conversations.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister attended the task and finish group, as did I. Will it meet again to consider that?
Ashley Dalton
I will come to the task and finish group in my remarks.
Research is the key to unlocking better treatments and improving quality of life. As has been mentioned, we have seen progress through projects such as DecodeME, the world’s largest genetic study of ME/CFS, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Preliminary findings from the study indicate genetic differences in eight areas linked to the immune and nervous systems in people with ME/CFS. That discovery of specific genetic signals may help us to understand the biological pathways involved in ME/CFS in the future.
However, we need to go further. That is why the plan includes a funding offer and a commitment to continue working with researchers, industry and patient groups. New awards announced this year include funding for repurposed treatments and £845,000 for a large infrastructure project called PRIME, or, to give it its full name, Building Infrastructure for Patients, Researchers and Industry for ME/CFS.
Together with the MRC, we are actively exploring next steps in ME/CFS research. For example, earlier this month we co-hosted the research showcase event for post-acute infection conditions, including ME/CFS. It brought together people with lived experience, researchers, clinicians and funders to help to stimulate further research in this field. We are now considering the discussions that took place at the showcase to explore the next steps to stimulate further research. The output of that event will be circulated as soon as possible.
The final delivery plan also sets out actions to improve access to specialist services—to provide better support for children and young people, and their families, and to address employment challenges. It aligns with our 10-year health plan, which includes the roll-out of neighbourhood health services, bringing care closer to home and ensuring that multidisciplinary teams can support people with complex conditions such as ME/CFS.
Provision varies across the country and we are determined to reduce those inequalities. The final delivery plan includes actions to improve service mapping and workforce training so that every patient, regardless of postcode, can access the care they need. NHS England is working closely with the Department to support ICBs in commissioning equitable evidence-based services. Two of the most important actions in the plan are focused on NHS services. NHS England has already started its work on co-designing resources for systems to improve services for mild and moderate ME/CFS.
Ashley Dalton
While NHSE is in the process of being dismantled, all its functions continue, and the new Department of Health and Social Care will continue all its work. None of that is being got rid of; it is simply being brought together into a more efficient, new Department of Health and Social Care. The Department will continue to meet a group of key stakeholders to move the work forward on mild and moderate ME/CFS in the coming weeks. Additionally, I confirm that the DHSC has already started conversations with NHS England to explore a specialised service prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for severe ME/CFS. That work will continue.
Changing attitudes is as important as changing services to many people with ME/CFS who have faced disbelief or stigma. As outlined in the plan, we will address that by launching a public awareness initiative to improve understanding of the condition and the support available. We will work with schools, employers and social care providers to ensure that children and adults with ME/CFS receive the information and support that they need.
Ashley Dalton
I will not, as time is short.
To support healthcare professionals in diagnosis, as set out in the final delivery plan, the Department has worked with NHS England to develop an e-learning programme on ME/CFS for all healthcare professionals. The aim is to support staff so that they can provide better care and improve patient outcomes.
The plan was not developed in isolation. It reflects thousands of consultation responses and the input of the cross-sector task and finish groups. We repurposed the task and finish groups into a new post-publication stakeholder engagement group, and we look forward to working closely with it during the all-important implementation phase.
I recognise that some stakeholders feel that the plan does not go far enough, but let me be clear: this is not the end of the journey; this is simply the foundations. Our work does not stand alone; it stands on the broader ambition to transform the NHS from a sickness service into a health service. We are working with the DWP and the Department for Education to ensure that all the issues raised are considered, in particular during the Timms review.
ME/CFS has been overlooked for far too long. We are determined to change that. To everyone living with ME/CFS and to your families and carers, I say this: we hear you; we value you; we believe you; and we are committed to making the system work better for you and with you. Together, we can build a future where everyone receives the care, respect and support that they deserve.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Tessa Munt, you have one minute to wind up the debate.
Tessa Munt
Thank you, Mr Mundell, but I have little to say. I am delighted to hear what the Minister had to say, and I will be holding her feet to the fire. I wish to continue this campaign, and I will work with others on it. One of the things I omitted to say at the beginning was that I am a member of the APPG on ME. I should have declared that, so I seek your forgiveness for not having said so.
I am delighted by a number of the things that the Minister has been able to say. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate—I should probably have asked for a two or three-hour debate. In particular, I point to a phrase of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), about digging for treasure, I think. It is so moving to have heard so many important stories of people who are suffering. We really have to do something about this.
Ticketing Consultation and Call for Evidence: Government Response
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The UK has a world-leading live events sector. Our major sporting and cultural events not only are key to our social fabric, but support economic growth right across the country. For too long, however, access to live events has been undermined by ticket touts who exploit fans and extract value unfairly from the live events sector. Seeing your favourite artist or performer should not be a rip-off, and the hard-earned cash that fans pay to attend events should flow back into supporting growth and jobs in the sector, not line the pockets of touts. At the same time, we have seen that new practices across the ticketing market, such as dynamic pricing, are presenting further challenges for fans when buying tickets for the events they love.
This Government are committed to putting fans first, ensuring that they are protected from harmful practices on the ticket resale market. Today, we are setting out our plans to deliver for fans and the live events industry, by publishing the Government responses to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets and a call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector, which we ran earlier this year. This is another milestone in delivering on our commitment to grow our world-leading creative industries, as part of the Government’s new industrial strategy, boosting investment in the sector from £17 billion to £31 billion by 2035.
Government response to the consultation on the resale of live events tickets
After reviewing the evidence submitted through the consultation process, the Government are announcing that we will introduce the following measures:
A resale price cap which prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original ticket cost, inclusive of unavoidable fees incurred during the original purchase—saving fans an estimated £37 for each ticket bought on the resale market.
A separate cap on resale service fees, to ensure the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees, while providing a sustainable margin for resale platforms.
Resale volume limits which make it unlawful for someone to resell more tickets for an event than they were entitled to purchase.
Strict legal obligations on platforms to ensure compliance with the price cap, applied broadly to all online platforms facilitating resale of live events tickets.
There was broad support among fans, businesses and consumer groups for these measures, which make good on our manifesto commitment to put fans back at the heart of live events and end the scourge of industrial-scale touting. The Government will legislate to implement these measures when parliamentary time allows.
We recognise that robust enforcement is vital, so we will enable enforcement of the new measures via the consumer enforcement regime established by part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which recently came into effect. This regime provides for tough financial penalties of up to 10% of global turnover, and expedited powers for the Competition and Markets Authority to tackle certain consumer law breaches directly.
Government response to call for evidence on pricing practices in the live events sector
Overall, the responses we received revealed considerable frustration among fans about their experience of buying tickets for live events and suggested that there is scope for live events businesses to improve how they present pricing and other ticket information.
Businesses are already required by law to give fans clear and accurate price information before purchase, free from undue pressure or other manipulative tactics that could influence their decision. These principles are linchpins of consumer law and continue to apply to businesses in the live events sector, as in any other market. Based on current evidence and given that price transparency is already enshrined in consumer law, the Government do not intend to bring forward any new legislative proposals on pricing practices in the live events sector.
However, the ticketing industry must do better to earn the trust of the dedicated fans that sustain the live events sector. The Government expect businesses in the sector to treat the evidence gathered through our call for evidence as an incentive to act. Businesses should also carefully review the CMA’s recent findings on dynamic pricing, published on 20 June 2025, and ensure that their practices align with the guidance that the CMA has published alongside those findings. We welcome the commitment from the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers to convene the sector to establish best practice on ticketing, including price transparency, and look forward to seeing the outcome of this work.
Meanwhile, the outcome of the CMA’s investigation into Ticketmaster sends a clear signal to all ticketing platforms that fans must have access to clear and timely pricing information with accurate ticket descriptions, especially where different pricing models and queuing systems are in use. Where businesses fall short of what is expected of them under the law, the CMA has powerful enforcement tools to ensure businesses can be penalised and brought into line.
I am placing a copy of the Government response to the consultation and call for evidence in the Library of each House.
[HCWS1077]
Employment Rights Bill: Electronic and Workplace Balloting Consultation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
This Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. We are clear that you cannot build a strong economy whilst having people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. This has allowed bad actors to take advantage of loopholes in the current law via exploitative practices, fuelling a race to the bottom, undercutting responsible businesses, and eroding the living standards of working people. We are clear that unfair competition, where a bad employer undercuts a good employer by reducing the terms and conditions of service for their employees, is bad for business, bad for workers and bad for growth. Our plan to make work pay will modernise our employment rights legislation, extending the employment protections already given by the best British companies to millions more workers across the country. Strengthening this underlying framework will help build an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work.
As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” publication, published on 1 July 2025, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure all stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure and to help us implement each in the interests of all. Today I am launching a consultation seeking views on a draft code of practice on electronic and workplace balloting. Alongside a programme of direct stakeholder engagement, this consultation will support us in determining how best to put our plans into practice.
At present, almost all statutory trade union ballots must be conducted solely by post. This approach is outdated, limits democratic participation, and no longer aligns with modern voting practices or workplace realities. The Government are committed to modernising the rules for statutory union ballots to bring union participation in line with modern voting practices that political parties and listed companies already use. Therefore, we will be permitting the use of electronic and workplace balloting for statutory union ballots, while retaining the existing option of postal balloting. This will be delivered through secondary legislation and will be designed to ensure the security, accessibility and integrity of the ballot, drawing from established balloting procedures.
The Government will introduce a new statutory code of practice to accompany these changes, setting out how electronic and workplace balloting should operate fairly and lawfully in practice. The code will provide a clear and detailed guidance for unions, employers, workers and independent scrutineers, and will help ensure confidence in ballot outcomes. The Government are consulting on a draft version of this new code of practice. We welcome views from interested parties to ensure the code is clear, balanced and practical for all. This represents the first step of our plans to deliver electronic balloting across a range of statutory union and industrial action ballots.
This consultation will run for 10 weeks and will close on 28 January 2026.
Next steps for consultation
This consultation sets out the next steps in delivering our plans. As trailed in “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill”, further packages of consultations are planned to launch over the winter. These will be central to shaping the practical implementation of this legislation, helping the Government to deliver reforms that are both effective and inclusive. It is in everyone’s interest to get the relationship between employer and employee right. This consultation will help us make work pay for both.
[HCWS1070]
Factories of the Future
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
In the strategic defence review published in June, the MOD committed £1.5 billion of additional defence investment for energetics and munitions, including the always-on munitions pipeline. The Government are committed to building at least six new munitions and energetics factories this Parliament, creating at least 1,000 new jobs and driving defence as an engine for growth in every region and nation, supporting the Government’s decade of national renewal. Today, I can announce that the Ministry of Defence has identified at least 13 potential sites for new munitions and energetics factories, and I expect construction to begin on the first of the factories in the next year. The new factories will make munitions and military explosives to boost the UK’s warfighting readiness as the Government start to build the factories of the future.
I can also announce today that we have invited industry to submit proposals to meet the Government’s requirements for energetics production. The MOD’s requirements for energetics production will be published online today, and will set out the MOD’s plan to deliver a significant set of multi-year investments to support onshore production and generate growth in the UK. The document includes details of nine energetic materials which have been identified as key for the UK.
This follows a number of feasibility studies that MOD has funded for the new energetics factories to kick-start high-volume production at scale for the first time in nearly two decades. The engineering design work on the first of these factories has been commissioned with a view to start production for our own armed forces, and to enable our continued support to Ukraine. Potential sites include Grangemouth in Scotland, Teesside in north-east England, and Milford Haven in Wales. The factories will produce the components essential for bolstering the UK’s weapons arsenal including propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
The new munitions and energetics factories will deliver on the strategic defence review’s commitment to move to warfighting readiness and need to boost the UK’s firepower for the armed forces—and today is an important step forward. The first-of-its-kind strategic defence review was published in June, with the ambition to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad. The Government are delivering at pace on the recommendations in the review to keep the British people safe, with national security the foundation of the Government’s plan for change.
This Government are making defence an engine for growth, with a record increase in defence investment to protect the British people in a new era of threat while delivering a defence dividend—measured in good jobs, growing businesses, and new skills across the UK.
[HCWS1072]
School Funding
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today, I can confirm the publication of the provisional funding allocations for mainstream schools and local authorities in 2026-27 through the schools and central school services national funding formulas.
Provisional funding for mainstream schools through the schools NFF will total £50.9 billion in 2026-27. To simplify the funding system, the 2026-27 schools NFF includes funding for pay and national insurance contributions costs that were previously allocated outside the NFF. The funding for teachers’ pay has been converted to a full-year equivalent, so that it will support the costs of the 2025 teachers’ pay award across the whole 2026-27 funding year.
On top of this rolled-in funding, the core factor values in the schools NFF are rising by 2.1%, to increase the funding available to schools. Average per pupil funding in the NFF will rise to £6,771 in 2026-27. The funding “floor” will be set at 0%, continuing to ensure that the NFF protects schools against cash-terms reductions in their pupil-led per pupil funding. The NFF will continue to apply minimum per pupil funding levels.
Local authorities will continue to be responsible for operating local funding formulae, which will determine the funding that individual schools and academies in their area receive. The actual funding that schools see will therefore, in many cases, diverge from the NFF allocations that we are publishing today. To support moves to a more consistent funding system, we will continue to require those local authorities which are not already “mirroring” the NFF in their local formulae to move closer to the NFF.
The central school services block funds local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they continue to have for all schools, and some historical spending commitments that local authorities face. The central school services NFF for 2026-27 includes funding for pay and national insurance contributions costs that were previously allocated outside the NFF.
Updated allocations of schools and central school services funding for 2026-27 will be published to the usual timescale in December through the dedicated schools grant allocations, taking account of the latest pupil data at that point.
The publication of high needs allocations will follow by the end of the year.
[HCWS1069]
Diplomatic Immunity: Alleged Serious and Significant Offences 2024
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
In 2024, seventeen serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection branch of the Metropolitan Police Service, or other law enforcement agencies.
We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are other significant offences, such as driving without insurance and certain types of assault.
Around 26,500 people are entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the UK and the vast majority of diplomats and dependants abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious offences committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations 1961 and related legislation, we expect those entitled to immunity to obey the law. The FCDO does not tolerate foreign diplomats or their dependants breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When the police or other law enforcement agencies bring instances of alleged criminal conduct to our attention, we ask the relevant foreign Government or international organisation to waive immunity, where appropriate, to facilitate further investigation. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we request the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat or dependant.
Listed below are alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCDO by UK law enforcement agencies in 2024.
2024
Common Assault
Angola 1
Assault
Guinea 1
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Cote d’Ivoire 1
Domestic Abuse
Pakistan 1
Domestic Violence
Saudi Arabia 1
Domestic Grievous Bodily Harm
Guinea 1
Child Abuse
USA 1
Distribution of Indecent Images of Children
Turkey 1
Modern Slavery
Equatorial Guinea 1
Uganda 2*
Oman 1*
Driving without Insurance
Saudi Arabia 1
Drunk in Charge of a Motor Vehicle
Brazil 1
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
Saudi Arabia 1
Kenya 1
Uganda 1
*historic offence
Figures for previous years are available in the written statement to the House on 14 November 2024 (HCWS217), which can be found at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-09-14/hcws1028
[HCWS1075]
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Debts 2024-25
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) officials have regular contact with diplomatic missions and international organisations in the UK about outstanding national non-domestic rates (NNDR) payments, outstanding parking fine debt and unpaid London congestion charge debt, to press for payment of outstanding debt and fines. Protocol directorate wrote in April 2025 to all diplomatic missions and international organisations about their obligations to pay the charges, fines and taxes for which they are liable, and has since written directly to those missions with outstanding debt to give them the opportunity to either pay outstanding debts, or to appeal against specific fines and charges that they consider incorrectly recorded. Diplomatic Mission / International Organisation Value of outstanding Beneficial Portion of NNDR payments due Embassy of the People’s Republic of China £528,051.64 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £269,902.03 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran £264,637.81 Embassy of Libya £241,751.25 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe £196,685.52 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £189,348.60 Embassy of the Russian Federation £172,991.34 High Commission of the Republic of India £171,976.59 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £168,841.95 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £109,923.16 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £107,609.28 High Commission for the People s Republic of Bangladesh £106,402.09 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £103,413.32 High Commission of the Republic of South Africa £102,386.49 Uganda High Commission £83,780.71 Sierra Leone High Commission £81,989.86 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £77,776.11 Embassy of Tunisia £64,192.31 Embassy of the People s Democratic Republic of Algeria £58,487.81 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £57,733.62 Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea £57,658.64 Kingdom of Eswatini High Commission £57,532.48 The Gambia High Commission £52,253.03 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen £50,137.92 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £47,778.81 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon £42,399.47 Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela £35,418.96 Embassy of the Republic of Cuba £35,306.86 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria £32,760.25 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £31,120.41 High Commission of the Republic of Fiji £26,805.17 Embassy of Luxembourg £26,581.56 Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £26,336.97 High Commission Of the Republic of Malawi £25,263.68 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £24,805.01 Kenya High Commission £23,695.63 Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo £23,669.33 Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation £23,364.36 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £23,008.64 Embassy of Portugal £22,697.56 Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman £22,124.20 Embassy of the Argentine Republic £21,746.47 Embassy of the United Arab Emirates £21,489.65 Embassy of Iceland £20,156.76 Embassy of the Republic of Haiti £19,146.39 Malaysian High Commission £18,241.54 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt £17,892.27 Embassy of the Republic of Paraguay £17,447.98 Embassy of the Republic of Albania £16,637.60 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £15,705.78 Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan £15,194.10 Embassy of the Republic of Guinea £15,082.76 Jamaican High Commission £14,131.20 Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia £13,446.99 Embassy of the Republic of Armenia £12,775.22 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany £12,466.26 Embassy of the Republic of Croatia £11,827.06 Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye £11,813.76 Embassy of the State of Eritrea £11,592.57 The High Commission of the Republic of Seychelles £11,567.59 High Commission of the Gabonese Republic £11,275.32 High Commission for Saint Lucia £10,951.20 Rwanda High Commission £10,893.12 High Commission for Grenada £10,892.50 High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho £10,748.40 Embassy of the Kyrgyz Republic £10,528.90 Embassy of Uruguay £10,483.08 Embassy of Nicaragua £10,022.49 Mission / International Organisation Value of outstanding PCNs Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £289,285.00 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £127,355.00 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £78,575.00 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £73,105.00 Uganda High Commission £67,095.00 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £65,519.00 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan £42,459.00 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £41,015.00 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £29,335.00 Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman £27,880.00 Embassy of Romania £25,780.00 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £25,645.00 Embassy of the United Arab Emirates £21,545.00 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £20,995.00 Embassy of the State of Qatar £19,220.00 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £19,060.00 Malaysian High Commission £17,869.00 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £17,505.00 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £15,185.00 Embassy of the People’s Republic of China £14,253.00 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £13,900.00 Embassy of Georgia £13,040.00 Embassy of Hungary £11,260.00 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan £10,725.00 U.S. Embassy £15,857,775 Embassy of the People s Republic of China £11,489,780 Embassy of Japan £10,932,048 Office of the High Commissioner for India £10,070,585 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £9,383,075 Embassy of the Russian Federation £6,143,715 Embassy of the Republic of Poland £6,117,550 High Commission of the Republic of Ghana £5,655,045 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan £5,588,665 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany £4,824,040 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £4,310,870 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £3,831,060 Kenya High Commission £3,768,270 Embassy of the Republic of Cuba £3,088,520 Embassy of the Republic of Korea £3,024,760 People s Democratic Republic of Algeria £2745,720 Embassy of France £2,728,320 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £2,503,640 Embassy of Spain £2,418,000 Embassy of the Republic of Türkiye £2,206,120 High Commission of the Republic of South Africa £2,191,370 Sierra Leone High Commission £2,161,095 Embassy of Romania £2,010,250 Embassy of Greece £1,840,742 Embassy of Ukraine £1,825,320 High Commission of the Republic of Cyprus £1,702,880 Embassy of Hungary £1,547,850 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £1,240,640 Botswana High Commission £1,211,290 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen £1,153,560 Uganda High Commission £1,031,060 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria £1,026,830 High Commission of the Republic of Malawi £959,530 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £933,430 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe £958,055 High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique £956,700 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £929,540 High Commission of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £920,490 High Commission for the Republic of Namibia £909,880 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco £903,610 Kingdom of Eswatini High Commission £889,390 Malta High Commission £817,055 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon £792,150 Embassy of Belgium £786,840 Mauritius High Commission £748,655 Embassy of the Republic of Belarus £744,085 Embassy of Slovakia £719,790 Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania £710,265 Embassy of Austria £694,060 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £674,670 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £629,460 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £612,680 High Commission of the Kingdom of Lesotho £609,700 Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam £589,110 Embassy of The Republic of Guinea £583,890 Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea £570,290 Embassy of Tunisia £570,160 Jamaican High Commission £529,740 Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo £521,580 Embassy of the Czech Republic £506,200 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan £500,790 Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia £481,743 Royal Danish Embassy £435,695 Embassy of the Republic of Latvia £388,240 Embassy of Portugal £382,120 Embassy of Luxembourg £372,125 High Commission for Antigua and Barbuda £368,475 Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan £363,020 High Commission of the Republic of Maldives £312,470 Embassy of the Democratic People s Republic of Korea £276,590 Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £260,560 Embassy of Estonia £259,010 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania £257,120 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt £244,000 High Commission for Guyana £217,900 Embassy of the State of Eritrea £203,080 Embassy of the Republic of Armenia £198,790 Embassy of the Kyrgyz Republic £181,257 Embassy of the Dominican Republic £180,790 Embassy of the Republic of Senegal £178,365 The High Commission of the Republic of Seychelles £169,935 High Commission for Saint Lucia £159,230 Embassy of El Salvador £156,715 The Gambia High Commission £136,690 Embassy of the Republic of Moldova £134,830 Embassy of the Republic of Albania £124,480 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran £111,020 Embassy of Bosnia & Herzegovina £101,380
National non-domestic rates:
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates (NNDR) due from them. Diplomatic missions and international organisations are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services received, such as street cleaning and street lighting.
As at 30 June 2025, the total amount owed to HMG for NNDR invoices issued up to 31 March 2025 is £4,458,866. Representation in 2024-25 by protocol directorate of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to diplomatic missions and international organisations has led to a reduction since April 2024 of over £1.2 million NNDR debt.
Diplomatic premises of the following countries and international organisations have balances owing in excess of £10,000 in respect of NNDR for invoices issued up to 31 March 2025:
Parking Fines:
Parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations are brought to our attention by local authorities, primarily but not exclusively in London. The FCDO considers those with privileges and immunities liable for fines issued as penalty charge notices (PCNs) by local authorities for vehicle parking infringements. We expect PCNs to be paid to the issuing office.
The FCDO regularly reminds missions and international organisations to pay outstanding PCNs. We wrote to all missions and international organisation in April 2025 to remind them of their obligations to pay fines for parking infringements and have written to those missions and organisations with outstanding debt, giving them the opportunity either to pay or to appeal against them if they consider that the fines had been recorded incorrectly.
As at 30 May 2025, the total value of outstanding PCNs notified to FCDO by local authorities is £1,358,383. The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organizations which have outstanding PCN fines totalling £10,000 or more:
London Congestion Charge:
The value of unpaid congestion charge debt incurred by diplomatic missions in London since its introduction in February 2003 until 30 September 2025, as advised by Transport for London (TfL), was £164,621,750. TfL publishes details of diplomatic missions with outstanding fines at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/congestion-charge
We consider that there are no legal grounds to exempt diplomatic missions from the London congestion charge, which is comparable to a parking fee or toll charge they are required to pay. FCDO officials wrote to all missions in April 2025 to encourage payment and directly to those missions with outstanding debt, giving them the opportunity either to pay or to appeal against any charges and penalty charge notices they consider to have been recorded incorrectly. TfL has similarly approached diplomatic missions.
The table below shows those diplomatic missions with outstanding fines of £100,000 or more:
Figures for previous years are available in the written statement to the House on 14 November 2024 (UIN HCWS218), which can be found at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-11-14/hcws218
[HCWS1076]
Men’s Health Strategy for England
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today marks the publication of England’s first-ever men’s health strategy.
It can be tough to be a man in today’s society. Mental ill health is on the rise, preventable killers such as heart disease and prostate cancer are being caught far too late, and tragically, suicide remains one of the leading causes of death of men under 50.
At the same time, lots of young men and boys—particularly those from working-class backgrounds—are being led astray by a proliferation of harmful influences and left feeling isolated and confused by the bombardment of conflicting messages about what it means to be a man.
Men can be less likely to seek help and more likely to suffer in silence. This, combined with a higher propensity to smoke, drink, gamble and use drugs, all adds up to a crisis in men’s health that ripples through families, workplaces and communities. This first-ever men’s health strategy for England is the Government’s response.
The strategy is designed to support men to take charge of their physical health and mental wellbeing. It is informed by the voices of experts, including men’s groups, charities, men’s health ambassadors, campaigners and partners. It supports men first by expanding access to support services; secondly, by ensuring that they are supported to take better care of themselves; and thirdly, by ensuring stigma is challenged and every man feels empowered to reach out for help.
The vision is simple yet bold: to improve the health of all men and boys in England. The strategy identifies six levers through which we will achieve this vision.
Improving access to healthcare services
To improve access, the Government will invest in community-based men’s health programmes, partner with organisations including the Premier League, develop digital health services, equip professionals to respond to men’s health needs, work with media experts and improve the evidence on men’s health literacy.
Supporting individual behaviours
The strategy includes targeted “stop smoking” and cocaine and alcohol-related interventions, alongside implementation of the new statutory levy on gambling operators, which will provide increased independent, sustainable funding to support system-wide improvements relating to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms across Great Britain.
Developing healthy living and working conditions
Actions include workplace health initiatives, promoting NHS health checks for professional drivers, and campaigns to build resilience against online harms.
Fostering strong social, community, and family networks
The strategy harnesses the sports sector to build men and boys’ social connections and improves father inclusion in Best Start family hubs, and Healthy Babies. It also commits to strengthening the evidence base on the mental health of fathers during the perinatal period. For example, it explores commissioning research on the rate of all-cause mortality and suicide-specific mortality in fathers in the year after childbirth.
Addressing societal norms
The Government will challenge and change these norms by building the evidence base and identifying ways to build media literacy skills in men.
Tackling health challenges and conditions
Targeted actions include neighbourhood-based suicide prevention pilots and respiratory illness case-finding initiatives in former coalfield areas.
This strategy is a crucial first step, laying the foundation from which we can learn, iterate and grow. Recognising that men’s health issues cannot be solved by Government alone, the Government are committed to learning from, and working in partnership with, the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, through the establishment of a new stakeholder group to inform implementation. The Government will also look to build a broader coalition, including with service providers, employers and important sectors such as media and sport.
The Government will also work with the newly established Men’s Health Academic Network, and fund research through the National Institute of Health and Care Research to build the evidence and inform future policy direction.
This strategy is not just a plan; it is a call to action to create a society where men and boys are supported to live longer, healthier and happier lives; where stigma is replaced by understanding; and where every man knows that his health matters.
[HCWS1074]
Local Government: Unitary Councils
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
This Government are determined to streamline local government by replacing the current two-tier system with new single-tier unitary councils. This landmark reform is at the heart of our vision: councils that are close enough to care, but strong enough to reform public services, drive economic growth, and empower their communities. Empowered local government, based on unitary councils and strategic authorities, is the foundation for growth across the country—the Government’s number one mission.
Following the decision on reorganisation in Surrey, we are now looking forward to making progress across the rest of the country. With single councils in charge over sensible geographies, we will see quicker decisions to build homes, grow our towns and cities and connect people to jobs. Cities such as Colchester, Portsmouth and Norwich can drive growth at the national scale, but we need to make sure the structures around them support, rather than hinder, their ambitions.
Strong local government is also key to tackling deprivation and poverty. People living in neighbourhoods high on the index of multiple deprivation, such as in Hastings, Tendring, and Great Yarmouth, deserve responsive and joined-up services that help them reach their full potential. In place of multiple levels of confusing and inefficient structures, one council will take responsibility for what a place needs.
On 26 September, my Department received final proposals from councils in six invitation areas. I would like to thank all councils in these areas for their work in bringing these 17 proposals forward. As per the invitation, these proposals include the areas of existing neighbouring small unitary councils. Some proposals were accompanied by requests for boundary change, whereby existing districts would be split; these will require careful consideration.
Today I am launching consultations on all the below proposals, available on gov.uk, and I will deposit a copy of each in the House Library.
Two proposals from councils in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove:
Eastbourne borough council, East Sussex county council, Hastings borough council, Lewes district council and Rother district council submitted a proposal for one unitary council for the current East Sussex county footprint.
Brighton and Hove city council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils on a pan-Sussex basis.
Wealden district council did not submit a proposal.
Four proposals from councils in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock:
Braintree district council, Essex county council and Epping Forest district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Thurrock council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Rochford district council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Basildon borough council, Brentwood borough council, Castle Point borough council, Chelmsford city council, Colchester city council, Harlow district council, Maldon district council, Southend-on-Sea city council, Tendring district council and Uttlesford district council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Four proposals from councils in Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and Southampton:
East Hampshire district council and Hampshire county council submitted a proposal for four unitary councils.
Basingstoke and Deane borough council, New Forest district council and Test Valley borough council submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
Winchester city council submitted a separate proposal for five unitary councils.
Eastleigh borough council, Fareham borough council, Hart district council, Havant borough council, Portsmouth city council, Rushmoor borough council and Southampton city council also submitted a proposal for five unitary councils.
All four proposals leave the Isle of Wight unchanged as an existing unitary council. Gosport borough council and Isle of Wight council did not submit a proposal.
Three proposals from councils in Norfolk:
Norfolk county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
South Norfolk district council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
Breckland district council, Broadland district council, Great Yarmouth borough council, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, North Norfolk district council, and Norwich city council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in Suffolk:
Suffolk county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Babergh district council, East Suffolk district council, Ipswich borough council, Mid Suffolk district council and West Suffolk district council submitted a proposal for three unitary councils.
Two proposals from councils in West Sussex:
West Sussex county council submitted a proposal for one unitary council.
Arun district council, Adur district council, Chichester district council, Crawley borough council, Horsham district council, Mid-Sussex district council and Worthing borough council submitted a proposal for two unitary councils.
The consultations will run for seven weeks until 11 January 2026. The consultation documents are available on the Department’s online platform “Citizen Space" and those responding to the consultations can use this online platform, email or post to submit their views. I welcome views from all councils in these areas as well as neighbouring councils, and specified public service providers, including health providers and the police, and other business, voluntary and community sector and educational bodies. Where boundary changes are requested, we consider it appropriate to consult the local government boundary commission for England.
I would also welcome responses from any other persons or organisations interested in these proposals, including residents, town and parish councils, businesses and the voluntary and community sector.
Once the consultations have concluded, the Government will assess the proposals against the criteria in the invitation and decide, subject to parliamentary approval, which, if any, proposals are to be implemented, with or without modification. In taking these decisions, we will have regard to all the representations received, including those from the consultation, and all other relevant information available.
I will continue to update the House as further milestones are reached in the delivery of this landmark reform.
[HCWS1071]
Cabinet Committees
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Today I am publishing an update to the Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1073]
East West Rail: Autumn Announcement 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
East West Rail will unlock growth and productivity and benefit communities right across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. It will create faster, more direct rail connections and improve access to employment, training, and education.
East West Rail is a central part of the Government’s plans for growth in the region and has the potential to support up to 100,000 new homes, providing well connected, sustainable communities. By 2050, East West Rail is set to boost the regional economies of the counties between Oxford and Cambridge by £6.7 billion every year.
Major infrastructure work for the first stage of East West Rail between Oxford and Milton Keynes via Bicester Village has now been delivered and is operational for freight and charter trains. The Department is supporting Chiltern Railways as it works closely with unions and other industry partners to get services on the first phase of East West Rail up and running as soon as possible.
At the 2025 spending review, the Government announced £2.5 billion to progress the next stages of the scheme. East West Railway Company has today published its “You Said, We Did” report setting out updated proposals for the railway and how feedback from the 2024 non-statutory consultation has been considered in its plans. The updated proposals include:
Increasing capacity on the line to deliver more frequent services for passengers;
Consolidation of stations along the Marston Vale Line (Bletchley-Bedford) into four new, modern and accessible stations on new sites at Woburn Sands, Ridgmont, Lidlington, and Stewartby;
Plans for the new station at Bedford St Johns and for the redevelopment of Bedford station to improve passenger experience and access to the station;
Updated options for the replacement of Bicester London Road level crossing;
The proposed alignment of the railway and the new east coast main line interchange station at Tempsford;
The location of the new station at Cambourne;
A new station at Cambridge East, subject to third party funding; and
Partial-discontinuous electrification of the line to provide passenger services using hybrid battery-electric trains.
The latest proposals for East West Rail reflect the Government’s commitment to realising the full potential of the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and delivering improved connectivity for communities in the region.
East West Rail Company will continue to engage with local communities on the proposals ahead of further consultation in 2026 before finalising its application for a development consent order to build the railway. As part of its preparation for the DCO application, it is considering the opportunities from proposed reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
The Department for Transport will be issuing updated safeguarding directions for East West Rail in line with today’s announcement. I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Library in both Houses.
[HCWS1068]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to three debates on three statutory instruments. I welcome the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, to her place for what I believe is her first appearance in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes, but I am glad to say that is highly unlikely. We can therefore proceed accordingly.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
Thank you very much. These draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, also known as PSTI. The world-leading PSTI regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products, such as mobiles, smart appliances and smart cameras.
The law does so by banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords, such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide the much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues.
The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. The UK advocates an industry-led, multi-stakeholder approach to standardisation, ensuring that technology and cyber standards are market driven, reflecting global best practices and delivering benefits for industry and citizens—contrasting with government-driven approaches, where standards are sometimes used to pursue political goals and ambitions.
Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. Two such countries are Japan and Singapore. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for IoT products—JC-STAR—in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cybersecurity labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020. Both the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on the global standards of the cybersecurity for consumer internet of things from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, also known as ETSI EN 303 645. This is a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 other countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements.
Officials have carefully reviewed the requirements of the schemes, and they both require unique passwords, vulnerability reporting and a period of product support. As such, products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cybersecurity than that required under the UK’s PSTI regime. There is, therefore, no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met these equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus is on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of this House, this draft instrument will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.
I shall move on to the amendments. Regulations 4 and 8 amend the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023 to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement, under Section 9 of the 2022 Act, that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new Regulation 4A of and new Schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme or a label under any level of the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend Schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the relevant security requirements set out in Schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either of these labels and where that label is valid. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of the Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of these deeming provisions.
The UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology signed MoUs on working towards co-operation on cybersecurity—including the possibility of mutual recognition of our respective consumer internet of things cybersecurity regimes—with Singapore and Japan, on 23 October and 5 November respectively. When both MoUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions.
Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example by championing the global adoption of cybersecurity standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are vital parts of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.
This instrument will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will recognise the importance of these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the Minister, with this being her first time going into something like this. This is not an area that I usually cover. Acronym hell may not be here, but you can see it from the edge of this debate.
Basically, we are talking about something that makes trade easier and compatible. The instrument talks about making sure that things are safer in the current digital age. That is all to the good, but I have a couple of questions. How are we doing ongoing equivalence and oversight? How are we looking to make sure that we stay in touch with the regimes? How much are foreign regimes being monitored to make sure that this is all ongoing and happening?
Also, what about the economic quantification? That is an important way of asking how practical it is, especially for smaller users and consumers in this field. Are we doing anything to make sure that it is practical and will work if you are an SME? That is very important because we may have made a wonderful thing that looks great on paper and in theory—probably on a computer screen, in this case—but how will it work in practice? How are we going to monitor that on the way through?
Of course, a degree of congratulation is in order to any Government who make trade easier. How will this measure be used to make trade easier? Can the Minister give an example of how trade will be done more easily? I am struggling for the right word, but how will we make our regime more compatible with other regimes? Our biggest trading partner is still the European Union. How will our regime be more compatible with the EU’s? These are just a few things I hope the Minister will clarify when she responds.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in welcoming the Minister to her first appearance in Grand Committee. What better example could she have of the way in which things can develop in this place where there is agreement on all sides? She may have felt on Monday that it was not possible to reach agreement on the matters before us then, when she played a prominent part. Although the House of Lords has expressed its views strongly, I still think there is room for agreement, which I very much hope will follow. Having said that, perhaps I may set an example of what can be done and say that I approach this statutory instrument in a constructive spirit because we support cybersecurity protections for consumers.
The UK consumer device security regime, which was introduced under the previous Government, set an important international benchmark. As more of our daily lives depend on connected devices, it is vital that products are secure by design and that consumers are protected from avoidable vulnerabilities. These regulations provide a practical amendment to the existing framework through recognising Singapore’s cybersecurity labelling scheme and Japan’s Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 as equivalent to our baseline. They remove unnecessary duplication for manufacturers, while at the same time maintaining consumer safety. Where trusted partners meet high standards—rooted, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, in the same ETSI framework underpinning the UK regime—it is reasonable to avoid repeat testing and reduce barriers to trade. Therefore, we do not oppose the SI but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have a number of questions. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify a few points.
My first question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. How will the Government monitor ongoing equivalence? The Singaporean and Japanese schemes may evolve. If their requirements then diverge from the UK’s baseline, what mechanism will be used to reassess or revoke recognition? If they move too far in the wrong direction, what will we do? As the noble Lord pointed out, this is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises that need some certainty about the way in which these regulations will be enforced. Secondly, on enforcement, where a product enters the UK market with a foreign label, will our regulators have access to the evidence underpinning that certification? What steps will be taken if a certified product is later found to contain vulnerabilities? Finally, while the impact is assessed as below the threshold for a full assessment, can the Minister share any indicative estimates of the expected benefits to business, whether in reduced compliance costs or faster access to market?
In summary, international co-operation on cyber standards is vital and these regulations represent a sensible step in that direction. We support the intention to streamline compliance while upholding robust protections for UK consumers. However, continued oversight and clarity from the Government will be essential to ensure confidence in the system as it develops. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for the fact that we find ourselves in agreement on the fundamental principle underlying this SI: common cybersecurity standards that facilitate trade are a good step forward for the UK and for global cybersecurity.
I come to some of the questions raised. Regarding how this regime will be enforced, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the regulator of the PSTI regime. It has a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and can act against any business found to be non-compliant. Only products with a valid, unexpired label, under either the Japanese or the Singaporean scheme, can be made available, and if a product is subsequently found to have a security risk, the enforcement body—the OPSS—can act in line with its published enforcement policy to ensure that consumers are protected from harm.
Equally, Japan and Singapore have regulators overseeing their regimes. The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore are responsible for enforcing their respective labelling schemes. Although the mutual recognition pathway streamlines compliance, it does not remove accountability, and the OPSS will continue to monitor market activity and enforce if it sees any security failures. In addition, the Government will continue to engage with our international partners to ensure that the recognised schemes remain aligned with UK standards. That is part of this proposal.
In respect of the EU, ETSI EN 303 645 is the international standard for consumer devices, and EU members follow it. As noble Lords will know, the EU has the CRA, which covers more than the PSTI, some of which has not yet come into effect. We are considering how best to align with that regime, which is quite different in nature.
If the standards change fundamentally, both MoUs allow us to disengage, and the SI applies to these specific Japanese and Singaporean standards only. If they change too much, it would be invalid. That should provide some reassurance that these standards are equivalent, there are processes to ensure that they remain equivalent, and we can disengage if we need to.
On the question of business impact and how to make the most of it, it is true that the trade corridors for manufactured goods between us and Japan and Singapore are perhaps not the most active. However, the latest figures show that in 2024 approximately £183 million of exports to Japan and £442 million of imports were goods potentially within the scope of PSTI. For Singapore, those figures were £84 million of exports and £88 million of imports. We are keen to publicise and make it clear that these regimes will enable those businesses that can take advantage of them to do so, along with all our normal trade promotion activities. I hope that that addresses the questions raised by noble Lords.
To conclude: as we know, we have more connected products than ever. It is very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected product, and this connectivity brings convenience but also risks. The cybersecurity regulatory landscape is evolving and countries around the world, such as Japan and Singapore, are introducing similar regimes. We are keen to keep our leadership in this space by co-operating with like-minded regimes.
The draft instrument we have considered today will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cybersecurity, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade. We are reducing regulatory burdens and supporting UK businesses to bring compliant products to our market. This is a practical step forward in our mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It complements efforts to harmonise security standards across other major economies in partnerships with, for example, Brunei, the UAE, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary via the global cybersecurity labelling initiative.
With forecasts suggesting that the global IoT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating over £1 trillion of annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale. This is a good step towards achieving this goal. I look forward to working further on this and commend the instrument to the Committee.
Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking to these regulations, which were laid before the House in draft on 13 October 2025. I would like to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny provided on this draft statutory instrument.
This Government have now fulfilled our promise by establishing the Independent Football Regulator, following the Football Governance Act 2025 achieving Royal Assent in July. The Act was born out of necessity; just look at what has happened at Sheffield Wednesday over recent months and years. Despite the global success of English football, we have seen too many clubs overshadowed by irresponsible owners, unsuitable financial models and inadequate regulations. Too often, fans have had to fight to protect their club’s very identity and existence.
Following the Act, the Independent Football Regulator was established with three key objectives: clubs’ financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and safeguarding club heritage. The regulator is the first of its kind and is designed to protect our cherished clubs, empower fans and keep clubs at the heart of their communities. By delivering the necessary stability and long-term viability required to stimulate future investment and growth, the regulator will safeguard the football pyramid.
The Act itself did not define which clubs and competitions would fall under the regulator’s scope—an issue much discussed in this place during the passage of the Bill. This approach mirrors other sporting legislation and ensures that the regime can adapt swiftly to any changes in the football pyramid. As noble Lords are aware, amending delegated powers is quicker and easier than amending primary legislation. Following extensive discussion during the Bill’s passage, the scope set out in this statutory instrument remains consistent with the recommendations in the fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government.
This statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as follows: the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The critical issues in English football that warrant the regulator’s existence, identified in the excellent fan-led review led by Dame Tracey Crouch, are most starkly and prominently evident in the top five professional tiers of men’s English football. Extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be disproportionate, in our view, as the burden on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of regulation.
The independent review of domestic women’s football, led by Karen Carney and published in July 2023, recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate. We support this position.
We acknowledge that football is constantly evolving and circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act is scheduled to take place within five years of the licensing regime’s commencement and will again review the scope. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is empowered to carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope at any time, consulting the regulator, the FA and other stakeholders as deemed appropriate. This statutory instrument represents another pivotal milestone in the establishment of the Independent Football Regulator for the good of our national game.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I know we are talking about English football in this debate, but I want to put on record my congratulations to the Scottish team for their epic victory last night and their qualification for the World Cup. Well done to them.
I have a brief question for the Minister about what a future process for expanding the remit of the regulator might be. During the passage of the Bill, she set out the Government’s reasons—she reiterated them just now—for not including the women’s game in the scope of the regulatory regime at this stage. Hence, it is not covered in the SI we are discussing. She mentioned the five-year review but say that in 18 months’ time, those involved in running women’s football and the clubs approach the regulator and say they would like the women’s game to be included within the regulator’s remit? If the regulator agrees with that request, what will the process be to take that forward?
Will the Government simply agree and table a revised SI to be debated again, to include the women’s game within the scope of the regime, or will Ministers and DCMS officials be more actively engaged in the process if they believe the status quo that they have argued for until now remains a sensible position? Or will they say they have to wait for five years? It would be useful to know whether the Government have given any thought to what process might be able to take place if something happens before the review.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, these regulations do not surprise anybody. They are more or less what the Act said, so congratulations on bringing clarity. The question about the women’s game is reasonable; I was going to ask something similar. It is an ongoing question. If the women’s game, which is expanding at a phenomenal rate, has any of the problems that the men’s game had—hopefully, the warning shock from this might help—it is a decent thing to ask how it is to be brought in.
It is good to get the regulator functioning at the moment. We put a great deal of time into it. It was one occasion when I agreed with Governments led by three Conservative Prime Ministers and one Labour Prime Minister. We needed this, we should have it, and we should have it operational.
The review is the most important bit of this Act, as it stands. Will the Minister like to expand a little more on the scope and how it could be expanded? What do the Government envisage? We are doing something new. We are pretty sure the existing system has failed a lot of fans and communities by threatening their clubs, Sheffield Wednesday being only the last example. We could go on for ever, and the number of near misses is great, but we should not be going through the near miss of losing your club on a periodic basis. Only a few have gone, but it is almost wondrous that there have not been more casualties.
Having said that, we wish this instrument well; after all the hours we spent debating it, we can do nothing else. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the ongoing process because this is a first step, and a pretty bold first step. It certainly was not welcomed with open arms by the top tier of professional football. How is it going to develop? Also, the question about the women’s game is a genuine one; I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on asking it.
Before I sit down, let me, as a rugby fan who cheers for Scotland, say well done to those who kick the round ball; thank God they did not follow the example of their union colleagues.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the regulations in front of us. I strongly support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on the question of the inclusion of the women’s game. It is an argument that I have heard on a number of occasions. The fact that there is willingness and a desire on the part of women’s football to come under the aegis of the regulator is, I hope, something of which the Minister will take account.
I want to mention briefly one aspect of this instrument: its scope. As the Minister correctly said, it covers the Premier League, the three divisions of the Football League and the top level of the National League, which used to be called the Football Conference. It is quite appropriate for the line to be drawn at that, as the clubs below that level are not in need of the regulatory burden that I suspect the introduction of a regulator and its activities would impose, but there is one aspect of the relationship between the National League and the Football League that I would like her to take on board and, perhaps, discuss with the regulator when she next sees him.
Between the Premier League and the Championship, there is a promotion and relegation arrangement: three clubs go up and three clubs go down. Between the Championship and what is now the first division of the Football League, again, it is three up and three down. When you go down from the first division of the Championship to the second division, it is four up and four down. However, when you get to the second division of the Football League and the top level of the National League, it is only two up and two down; indeed, the introduction of a second place was awarded only as recently as 2003.
A very powerful campaign is under way in the non-league game, if one can call it that, to introduce three up and three down. If any of your Lordships attended a match in the National League or its feeder leagues last Saturday, they will have discovered that the kick-off was put back by three minutes in order to draw attention to this campaign. It is strongly supported by the Football Supporters’ Association. If there is to be fairness, as well as an opportunity for clubs below the Football League to thrive, it is very important that “three up” comes into being. I hope that the regulator will take account of that and will be prepared to consider it when it looks at the structure of the game. I would like my noble friend to be prepared to raise this with the regulator at the first opportunity.
I am sorry; I should have declared my interest as the honorary vice-president of the National League.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I first share in the felicitations that my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sent to the Scottish team on their result last night. I send my best wishes to all the home nations for good results in the next World Cup.
The regulations before the Grand Committee define the statutory scope of the Independent Football Regulator created under the Football Governance Act 2025. The Government have chosen to include the top five professional leagues in English men’s football—116 clubs—on the basis that financial and governance risks are greatest at this level. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there is no surprise here; this was the policy direction that was set out in the Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Bill that became that Act.
However, he was not quite right when he said that this is more or less what the Act says because, as the Minister alluded to in her remarks, the reason we are here making this law in a rather sparsely attended Grand Committee, rather than through primary legislation on the Floor of the House, is that making that clear in the Bill would have made it a hybrid Bill. As she said, that was much discussed during our debates on the Bill, so here we are.
Nobody disputes the need for clearer oversight of the beautiful game, but the question before the Committee today is whether the Government have brought forward a regime that is proportionate, workable and credible. On each of these tests, some doubts remain, and those doubts were only heightened by the unanswered questions in the exchanges we had yesterday on the leadership of the new regulator.
The Government say that the clubs at the five levels set out in the instrument before us can absorb the new compliance obligations, but the reality, as we heard across your Lordships’ House in our debates on the Bill and from the sector itself, is rather different. Premier League clubs have the structures to cope; many League Two and National League clubs do not. Some operate with only one or two staff; many others rely on volunteers. For them, these regulations are not a technical adjustment but a material burden. In her introductory remarks, the Minister spoke of the regulatory burden that the Government have decided would be too great for clubs in lower leagues, but I hope she will acknowledge that there will be burdens on many of the 116 clubs that we are proposing to designate today.
The Government have produced no clear assessment of this disparity. We think that is an omission. If regulation becomes too onerous, investment will dry up and the base of the pyramid—the foundations of our national game—will be weakened. The very system that this Act is seeking to protect could be undermined by the way that the new law is implemented.
The timing compounds the problem. These regulations come into force in less than a month, half way through the season, giving clubs minimal time to adjust. That is not proportionate regulation; it is regulatory pressure imposed without due preparation.
These concerns become even sharper in light of yesterday’s unanswered questions on the credibility and independence of the regulator’s leadership. These matters are directly relevant to this statutory instrument because the effectiveness of the regulatory regime is inseparable from trust in those enforcing it. As I set out in the House yesterday, this matters not because of what it means for trust in the present Government but because UEFA and others have been very clear that English teams’ continued participation in international tournaments depends on the demonstrable independence of the new football regulator.
In our exchanges yesterday, the Minister said that I asked a number of questions. In fact, I asked just two and she gave full answers to neither. Before we decide whether to allow this statutory instrument to pass, I hope that she will give some clearer answers to them.
When the Urgent Question that we repeated yesterday was taken in another place last week, the Secretary of State said that the appointment of David Kogan as the chairman of the new regulator was
“not a prime ministerial appointment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/25; col. 170.]
If that is the case, why did the official read-out that the Secretary of State gave to the submission that she was sent by her department on 19 March, quoted at paragraph 27 of the report by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, say that her “preferred candidate” was Mr Kogan? I quote from the Secretary of State’s own words given in that report,
“subject to No. 10 giving the green light”.
Why did she send the Prime Minister a note asking for that green light? That is my first question.
Last week, the Prime Minister was forced to write to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, because of the partial information given in another place during the debate on the Urgent Question. That letter said that in the light of the hospitality that the Prime Minister had received from football clubs and the Football Association, he had agreed with Sir Laurie last autumn that:
“I would recuse myself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill”.
Despite that recusal, the Prime Minister was not only sent a note asking for the green light on Mr Kogan’s appointment but responded in writing to confirm that he was supportive of it. The Prime Minister now says:
“This was an unfortunate error for which I express my sincere regret”.
This note was sent in April before it became public knowledge that, like the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister had received political donations from Mr Kogan for his Labour leadership campaign.
In the light of that revelation, the Prime Minister and Sir Laurie Magnus had another meeting in June this year and, as his letter of last week puts it, agreed that he should stay out of the appointment process for the new football regulator. My second question is: given these recusals, originally made in autumn last year and strengthened and repeated in June this year, how can the Prime Minister play a part in exonerating the Secretary of State for her breaches of the appointments code? How can he determine whether she has breached the Ministerial Code in this matter?
These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of whether Parliament and international sporting bodies can have confidence in the regime and the regulator, whose scope we are asked to approve today. Independence, transparency and good governance are not optional extras in regulation; they are prerequisites. I hope that we will get clearer answers to those questions today. Until the Government provide full and credible answers to them, this Committee cannot be confident that the framework underpinning this instrument is as robust, independent or transparent as it must be.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers on that, as well as to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Evans about the possible future inclusion of the women’s game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important and useful debate; I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it. In line with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, and other noble Lords, I congratulate Scotland on its impressive win last night. However, while we are congratulating home countries, I should like to note that Wales also won last night; I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wishing that team well in its future efforts to qualify.
In relation to the SI before us, the implementation of this regime, which prioritises the protection of clubs from financial distress and protects the interests of fans nationally, remains a priority for the Government. That is why we are working at pace to deliver the next phase of the independent football regulator’s framework, for which the delineation of scope is a necessary step. Despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, we believe that the new regulator is proportionate and will not place unnecessary burdens on smaller, less affluent clubs. I am also clear that the scope of the regime has been appropriately defined.
A number of other points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—in relation to whether, when or how the women’s game or other leagues might be added to the scope. I want to make it clear that I would like nothing more than the women’s game being viewed as mature enough and financially independent enough to be considered to be included. I said several times during the debates on the independent football regulator in your Lordships’ House that I was not allowed to play football at school; it is of huge regret to me still, but I am delighted that my nieces have that opportunity.
The regulations that we are discussing can be updated to change the scope of the regulator’s remit. The Secretary of State must, in that instance, carry out an assessment of whether it would be appropriate to make changes, including consulting the regulator, the FA and any other stakeholders whom they consider relevant. On the process that the Secretary of State would need to go through, a report on her assessment would need to be laid before Parliament; the Secretary of State can then make regulations, if they so choose. We will continue to monitor the health of the game to ensure that the regime is regulating the right competitions. For this first use of the power, we have chosen, as was outlined during the course of the Bill, the top five leagues of men’s football. This is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including the independent fan-led review.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the issue currently being addressed by National League clubs in the 3UP campaign. The Independent Football Regulator will have a tightly defined scope, as set out in the Act, focused on ensuring the financial sustainability that will protect clubs for future generations of fans. The IFR will not legally be able to act outside of this tightly defined scope and so will not be able to intervene in matters such as the promotion and relegation model between leagues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she set out. We had 10 minutes yesterday for the Urgent Question; it was not quite the opportunity to set out things at length. I am grateful for the further information she has given. The Secretary of State said, when that Urgent Question was taken in another place, that this was not a prime ministerial appointment. Given that, was she wrong to have written, on the submission sent to her on 19 March, that her
“preferred candidate is Mr Kogan, subject to No. 10 giving the green light”?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have not taken any part in the appointment process. This matter has been investigated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We should let this matter rest and let David Kogan get on with the job.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
There has been an investigation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government announced Mr Kogan and confirmed him as their preferred candidate to be chairman before the commissioner had completed his inquiry or published his report. Does the Minister regret moving with that haste, given that the commissioner has now found that three material breaches of the Governance Code on Public Appointments were committed by her department? I am casting aspersions not on the character of Mr Kogan but on the conduct of DCMS in this appointment. The three material breaches imperil the impression of his independence, which is paramount for the future of the game.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the question about the green light from No. 10, officials sent questions about the process to the No. 10 appointments teams, but that was not formally sent to the PM for his approval.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Would the Minister be willing to let the note that was sent to the Prime Minister be published in the Libraries of both Houses? It would be helpful to see the note that was sent and what the Prime Minister wrote. He has said publicly in his letter to Sir Laurie Magnus that he regrets that having been seen and written. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could see it and determine for ourselves whether that was an official submission to the Prime Minister.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to prolong this debate and obstruct the progress of the IFR going forward but, no, I am not going to make the commitment that he has asked for today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
If it is acceptable, I hope that the Chair can express his congratulations to Scotland on their wonderful victory and on the wonderful goals that secured it; of course, like all noble Lords present, we wish all of the home nations every success in every sporting endeavour.
Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within scope, introduce a new “equivalents” provision and remove government ships from the scope of the legislative regime. Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; no response has been received from either committee.
In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counterpollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the UK implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (Amendment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-US mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thus opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.
These proposed regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations. The proposed regulations, which are considered non-controversial, set out the United Kingdom conformity assessment system for marine equipment placed on ships registered in the United Kingdom.
Since the UK’s departure from the European Union, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies, which are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other government departments and maritime trade organisations. These provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—published a consultation report, including responses to comments received.
The proposed regulations also make other changes. First, they bring the approval of ballast water management systems into scope. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organization requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. These regulations included the approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the proposed regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.
Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalence provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.
Thirdly, the regulations will remove government ships from the scope of the marine equipment regime. This is due to the broader change in approach to government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post our exit from the European Union. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the existing instrument is being revoked using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. This will facilitate the amendment of these regulations in future, if required.
In conclusion, I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as has been set out, this instrument aims to simplify marine equipment regulations and provide clarity for industry. I am grateful for the briefing from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency earlier this week. Conventions require ships to carry safety equipment and counter-pollution equipment, which will meet certain standards. As we have heard, through the 2016 regulations, which were amended in 2019 following our exit from the EU, this SI will consolidate those regulations into a single instrument, which we support. They also concern the removal of government ships—that was clarified to me earlier this week—which are covered by defence maritime regulations.
However, I will raise the process and the time taken to get to what we are considering today. Having read the comments of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee regarding the related Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which I am sure will be before the House soon, the timing of these regulations—on which the committee did not comment specifically—needs further explanation. Can the Minister confirm when the consultation on today’s regulations took place? Why have these two sets of regulations not come at the same time, given that they are both about consolidation and review? When can we expect the replacement fees regulations to be introduced?
Given that we were here only last week looking at the instrument on railway car parks, which seemed to take an awfully long time to get here—over five years had passed since the consultation on the matter—and the regulations before us today were last updated some six years ago, what assurance can the Minister provide that the department will start to work at pace through a lot of the administration around these regulations, to ensure more timely consideration by this Committee? I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing for me by members of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Department for Transport, which was extremely helpful. The issues underlying this wholly uncontroversial instrument were debated in the other place, and the official Conservative view in support of the instrument was made clear there. It is very rare that one has the opportunity with any Government, least of all this one, to be able to say, “Well done. Carry on”, but that is my message.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not going to say I am stunned, because the noble Lord is wholly reasonable. It is a pleasure to hear his words.
I should just say in response to the noble Baroness that the consultation took place in the first half of 2025. They are not together, because self-evidently they are not together, but the fees regulations will come within 12 to 18 months. All I can say is that a huge amount of work is going on in my department in respect of both maritime legislation, a lot of which is in statutory instruments as we have discussed, and aircraft safety, because both are related to international conventions, to get over the large volume of work created by the withdrawal from the European Union. She can be assured that work is going on at pace.
It is evident that the results of the consultation, which were wholly positive in this respect, are very helpful. I would be much more worried not by its speed but if the consequence was that the maritime industry felt short-changed or uncomfortable with what is being proposed. It is pretty clear that it is not.
I think I have answered all the points that were raised. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his absolute support, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for hers. It is vital to ensure that all UK-flagged ships carry safe marine equipment that has been approved by the flag state. Consolidating the 2016 regulations and amending regulations into a single instrument will provide clarity for stakeholders. I am very pleased that both noble Lords got such a comprehensive briefing from the maritime agency. Therefore, I hope they will agree that the objective of these regulations, which is to simplify marine equipment regulations while maintaining high safety and environmental protection standards for UK ships, is desirable. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they are holding with the government of the United States of America on measures to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who will be participating remotely.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK fully supports President Trump’s efforts to end Russia’s illegal war, and we remain in regular contact with the US at every level. Last week, G7 Foreign Ministers agreed on the need for an immediate ceasefire and that the current line of contact should be the starting point for negotiations. We continue to work with the US and international partners to ratchet up the pressure on Putin, to force him to engage in meaningful discussions that result in just and lasting peace.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for over three years I have argued in the House for delaying Ukraine NATO membership, non-nuclear weapon status for barrier states stretching from Estonia to Georgia, a major powers treaty on Ukraine neutrality and the Russian ask, a deal on Donetsk and Luhansk. Why not think out of the box, face reality on the ground, join Trump’s meaningful attempts in promoting a Russian transition from quasi-autocracy to democracy and, in doing so, derail an opportunist, nomadic Russia’s links with an increasing assertive China, all in favour of promoting post-Putin Russia’s links to the West, which is where it belongs?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think the House is with the noble Lord on his plan. He has an idea for a settlement that he has long held close to his heart and put to this Chamber on several occasions. He knows that we disagree fundamentally with one another on this issue. We believe it is for the Ukrainians to decide when the conditions are right, whether they are prepared to negotiate and on what basis. That will remain this Government’s position.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have been in the noble Baroness’s position several times over, answering that particular question from the noble Lord. Bearing in mind the tragedy that is Ukraine, one of the real tragedies we have seen in diplomacy is the declining influence of the United Nations to convene some kind of negotiation. In this regard, alongside the United States, Turkey has played an important role. It is a NATO partner, and today President Zelensky is visiting Ankara. What direct engagement have we had with President Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Sadly, the noble Lord is right in what he says about the United Nations. We are where we are. We believe the United Nations remains the single most important multilateral organisation we have, and we would be inventing it if it did not exist.
We cannot allow ourselves, because of the situation we face with the politics at the UN, to be paralysed by the truth that the noble Lord has just outlined. We are very close to all partners who are endeavouring to move this along and create some conditions and opportunities for important dialogue to take place. We speak closely with our friends and allies in Turkey and with all those others who are endeavouring, as we are, to support those who wish to see peace in Ukraine and an end to Russia’s illegal war.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the Government make clear that we support Ukraine and that we stand by the Budapest memorandum, which has been so flagrantly defiled by the Russians? In that context, will we first transfer Russian assets to support the defence of Ukraine, and will we recognise that that £30 billion will be necessary unless peace can be agreed? Peace can be agreed—and the Americans have to accept this—only on terms that the Ukrainians can accept; it cannot be imposed by a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians; that is absolutely clear. We support President Trump’s efforts towards peace. It is important that we support all those who are trying to bring this dreadful war to a conclusion. On the issue of Russian assets, we are doing everything we can to make sure that the money needed for Ukraine gets there and that Russia pays for the damage it has caused.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in condemning the Russian attack this week on the Polish railway system? Is this not an example of how Putin may talk of peace but is doing the opposite in attacking one of our key allies, Poland?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I condemn the attack on the Polish railway. The attacks on Ukraine grow ever more deadly, and the attacks on Ukrainian energy supplies are particularly egregious as we approach the middle of winter. Putin’s actions belie the idea that he is genuinely seeking peace at the moment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too could not disagree more with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, because it is very clear that peace will never be achieved in Ukraine until Putin feels pressured to end the war. Can the Minister confirm that the UK will at least maintain the value in real terms of our military support to Ukraine next year?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are fully committed to maintaining our support to Ukraine militarily but also in all the other forms it takes.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept my thanks for the emphasis she put on the United Nations? Does she recognise that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a fundamental breach of the United Nations charter agreed in 1945, and that the use of the Russian veto and some other vetoes on the Security Council to prevent it doing anything useful to bring an end to this war is, in political terms at any rate, an abuse of its position?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with that. The politics of the UN are complex, as the noble Lord well knows, but it is clear to see at the moment that in regard to Ukraine the Security Council will not be the route through to a solution, which is why we have the coalition of the willing and other networks being established to try to get negotiations—notwithstanding what is happening at the UN—to make some progress and to bring about a conclusion to this deadly war.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the precedent that would be set by allowing Russia to keep any of its ill-gotten territorial gains would pose a far greater long-term threat to international peace and security than doing everything we can financially and militarily to support Ukraine to repel it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is absolutely right. Russia must not be rewarded for its actions here. That would send a bad signal to others around the world and would leave other states in the region incredibly vulnerable.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it would be very naive to believe that Putin’s only ambition is to occupy parts of Ukraine? He has much wider views about where he would like to occupy. It is most important that we make sure he does not succeed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have many reasons to believe that, not least because that is what Putin himself has said. We also look at the behaviour of Russia in Georgia, Romania and Poland. There is plenty of evidence to support what my noble friend asserts.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, Ukraine cannot win a body-on-body attritional conflict with Russia. Putin knows this. The only way he is going to come to the negotiating table is if Ukraine can inflict sufficient damage on Russia elsewhere. The only way it is going to be able to do that is with the kinds of weapon systems it currently does not have, and the only way it is going to get those is through the agreement of the United States. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the prospect of the United States agreeing to this any time soon? If it does not, the next several months look pretty dire for Ukraine.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure the noble and gallant Lord will know that the United States is shifting its position and is allowing Ukraine to purchase NATO weapons. We continue to talk to our friends and allies, especially in the United States, to make sure that Ukraine, as he says, has what it needs in order to defend itself.
Road Injuries and Deaths
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lennie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the annual number of serious injuries and deaths on the roads.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the annual report on road casualties in 2024 was published on 25 September. Sadly, it detailed 1,602 fatalities and a total of 29,467 people killed or seriously injured. These are awful numbers, but, in the last decade, they have largely plateaued. We are committed to reducing them and making our roads safer than ever by publishing the first road safety strategy in over a decade.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that helpful Answer. This week sees the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. For me, this is a deeply personal issue. My brother Magnus died exactly a year ago today, having spent four months in Addenbrooke’s Hospital following a crash between a van and his motorbike. Bedfordshire Police attending the crash failed to collect evidence, failed to pursue the crash, failed to breathalyse the van driver involved in the crash and failed my brother’s immediate family in their ongoing search for the truth of the cause of this crash.
Magnus’s family are extremely grateful to Tim Blackwell, a trustee of DocBike, a growing national charity determined to reduce the number of accidents and victims of motorbike crashes, for supporting them in their fight for justice. Magnus became one of the 30,000 or so victims and the 1,800 or so deaths on the road last year that the Minister mentioned. If these numbers were victims of, say, knife crime, there would be a public outcry and appropriate action taken. So I ask the Minister what specific plans the Government have to significantly reduce these shocking figures?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure the first thing to say is that your Lordships’ House will join me in offering our condolences to my noble friend on the loss of his brother. The road safety strategy will be comprehensive, covering all road users. Measures being considered include improving enforcement, the better use of vehicle data and modern technology, targeted measures for vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists, who are 1% of traffic but, sadly, 21% of fatalities and 20% of casualties, and changes to motoring offences.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, clearly our thoughts are with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and his family, for the sad loss he outlined in his question. As we heard, over 1,600 people die and around 30,000 more are seriously injured on UK roads every year, but this is not inevitable and we should not accept it as inevitable. As the Government develop their new road safety strategy, will they be guided by the internationally recognised safe system principles, which are grounded in harm reduction?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that that international system is a good guide. We recently discussed it in this House during the passage of what is now the Bus Services Act. I can confirm that the Government intend to use that guidance, because it is internationally recognised and successful.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, our condolences go to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. In fact, as the Minister said, motorcycle users made up over 20% of all road deaths in 2024, and many of these take place on rural roads and away from junctions. Have the Government considered reducing fatal outcomes among motorcycle accidents by mandating emergency notification technology for motorcycles, similar to the automatic eCall system now mandatory in cars, and will that form part of the road safety strategy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government will look at the use of all modern technology. There has not been a recent road safety strategy and, as the noble Lord sets out, technology has moved on a long way. So we will look at that, because, when an accident occurs, getting help to victims of the accident as soon as possible is obviously life-saving.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, please.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I think we are distinguishable.
Is the Minister aware of the figures in Wales for the reduction in road accidents and road deaths following the reduction of the speed limit to 20 miles per hour? Although that has been controversial in some areas and needs to be adjusted, none the less, if people’s lives—children’s lives—can be saved by such a change, surely that can be studied more broadly, and should not the insurance companies be reducing the premium that road drivers pay for their insurance cover in circumstances where the number of accidents is reducing?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I saw recently some very revealing figures on the reduction of accidents in Wales as a consequence of the imposition of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, although there are other views about its blanket introduction; the Government’s view is that introducing lower speed limits where it is appropriate produces the best result. I do not know about the insurance companies in terms of imposing speed limits, but we know that insurance companies should take note of better drivers and, increasingly, technology enables those companies to know where, when and how people are driving.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I also express my condolences to the noble Lord.
The Minister will be aware that yesterday in Australia it was announced for the first time that the number of road deaths caused by taking drugs exceeded the number of deaths caused by drink-driving. Given that, since 2013, the number of deaths caused by taking illegal drugs has increased by 70%, it is a matter of time before we get to that position. Will the noble Lord commit to the same kind of campaign that was waged over a generation to reduce deaths by drinking, by ensuring that people who take drugs have a certainty of being caught?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I was not aware of the recent Australian statistic, but frankly the noble Lord makes a good point and I am not surprised. To address this increase in drug-driving casualties over the last decade, which is manifesting itself increasingly every year, the Government intend to use the THINK! campaign and is finalising a new drug-driving campaign to launch later this year.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the Question. The Minister was very sympathetic to my question about reducing the drink-drive limit last time. He did not go further than being sympathetic, but can he respond to the amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, about random breath tests? Also, what is his reaction to the idea of “alcolocks”, because the majority of people found drinking and driving are repeat offenders?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who did indeed ask that question about drink-driving. We will consider these matters further. My noble friend dealing with the Crime and Policing Bill has a number of amendments to deal with. I am sure that we will deal with them then.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can anything be done about cycling on pavements?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Yes. It is a really bad thing to do. I will write to the noble and learned Baroness rather than riffle through these papers. Increasing the ability of local authorities to deal with what look like minor transgressions of behaviour but actually badly affect vulnerable people and their confidence and ability to move around. This Government are committed to doing something about it. I will write to her.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will have the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, then the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was not entirely comforted by the Minister’s answer on “alcolocks”. An alcolock is a breathalyser device that is linked to the ignition of a car, which means that somebody who has been drinking cannot start their car. This would massively reduce drink-drive casualties. Can he be a bit firmer on it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can certainly be a bit clearer about it, because there are public service vehicles that are fitted with the same technology, for some very obvious reasons. It is right to consider all these measures in the round. That is why we are revising the road safety strategy.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister understand the agony and trauma of losing a much-loved child? A teenage driver, having passed his driving test six weeks earlier, killed his three passengers on the way home from school. If the Minister does understand, what is he going to do about these teenage drivers?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I very much understand the tragedy that the noble Baroness describes, and indeed my ministerial colleagues have met some of the families of victims and of young drivers who have killed their friends and family. It is deeply distressing. The Government are committed to doing something about this. The current THINK! campaign is entirely addressed at young drivers, for this very obvious reason. People are very vulnerable when they start driving and do not have the experience. The Government recognise this and will consider it further in the road safety strategy review that I mentioned.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Industry
Baroness Walmsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to promote the hydrogen and fuel cell industry in the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan sets out a clear plan to boost growth in the UK hydrogen industry, including: deployment certainty for future hydrogen allocation rounds; launching the first transport and storage allocation round in hydrogen to power our business model next year; exploring options to expand the clear industry bonus of hydrogen; delivering events connecting developers with suppliers; and a comprehensive public financial institution offering, including the £1 billion Great British Energy supply chain.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I welcome the 27 projects that have been shortlisted under hydrogen allocation round 2. I hope that they are as successful as the 10 of the 11 projects in hydrogen allocation round 1 that now have contracts enabling them to move to the construction phase. Can the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to increase the levels of UK-made technology used in both hydrogen allocation round projects to ensure that they do not have to buy it in from abroad and that it can achieve its potential in terms of jobs in the UK and the UK economy?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. This is a very important sector that the Government are working on, and we want to see it improve. The Government highly value regular engagement with the industry. We will be meeting the industry next week, on 26 November, to work out how we can work together and what else we can do to make sure that this sector is a success. We intend to invest in the supply chain. In due course we will publish a hydrogen strategy policy. We should remember as well that, globally, by 2050, this industry could be worth $1 trillion. That is something I want to see the UK be part of.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is aware that ExxonMobil is planning to close its Mossmorran ethylene plant in Fife in the great footballing nation of Scotland. I could not resist. While that result will give the workers great cheer, I seriously ask the Minister: can he set out what specific support the Government are offering at the site and how quickly that help will be available?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the World Cup, and there were some really good goals last night. It was really sad to hear that news about the plant at Mossmorran, which produces ethylene for export, employing 179 people. The Minister has spoken to the chair of the company and the unions, and the Government stand ready to provide support through the DWP rapid response service. The plant is 40 years old, has been loss-making for five years, and would take £1 billion of investment to turn around. This is a commercial decision by the company. The chair of ExxonMobil has confirmed to the Minister that he was not suggesting that the closure was due to a lack of action by the Government. The Government will do all we can to help those who are in difficulty.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is there not one more hydrogen potential that the Minister has not mentioned? In transporting electricity, or transporting hydrogen, the prospect can be raised of avoiding having to cover the whole country with thousands more electricity pylons, as NESO is currently predicting. I agree that that means lower costs for hydrogen, but better lower costs and transport than paying huge sums of money to owners of wind farms not to produce electricity at night at all.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, which raises a very important issue. It is fair to say that hydrogen cannot provide all the answers to issues around energy provision, but it can reach those hard-to-reach businesses such as steel and chemicals, for example. We need to set up a system in which we can do that. The Government are investing in that; we are spending tens of millions of pounds on doing just that. It is something that we want to see grow into the future. As I have said, by 2050 it will be a $1 trillion industry, and the UK has to be part of it.
Lord Markham (Con)
Following on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, US and European industries have a very simple tax incentive and subsidy plan to encourage domestic production of clean hydrogen, and their industries are responding as a result. By contrast, we have quite a clever but complicated and opaque system, which means that we are not seeing the same level of UK hydrogen production or equipment. Do we have any plans to review our system to learn the lessons from best practice around the world?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
We are always open to reviewing what the Government do in all varieties of ways to do with tax. We will have to wait to see whether there is anything on that in the Budget next week. As I said, we are investing in the supply chain. We want to see energy produced in the most effective way. I think we will be in a position over the next couple of years, especially with the hydrogen strategy, which will be published in the next while, to show to the country and to the industry that we are taking this seriously. If anything needs to be reviewed, I am sure that we will be prepared to do that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the 2021 Science and Technology Committee report made recommendations on hydrogen and fuel cells. One of the hydrogen recommendations was a strategy for the Government to produce hydrogen. I commend the Government on their commitment to produce 10 gigawatts of power through hydrogen, 50% through electrolytic hydrogen. Alongside that, the other recommendation was to develop combined heat and power fuel cells, both small-scale ones of several kilowatts and bigger cells of several megawatts, to go with electrolysed hydrogen. I wonder whether the Government have any strategy related to that.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
On fuel cells in general, we can say that the industry has funded R&D for zero-emission technologies and transport through a number of programmes, including the zero-emission HGV and infrastructure demonstrator programme. Nearly 300 zero-emission HGVs have been produced and there are 73 planned infrastructure locations, while battery electric HGVs are currently available for purchase, with over 35 models on the market. We are doing a lot in this area, but I will take into consideration what else the noble Lord has mentioned and write to him.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, we accept that the use of hydrogen is to help us to reduce our carbon footprint but recognise that there are a variety of different ways by which that hydrogen can be generated, some of which are environmentally damaging. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that the hydrogen used across UK industry is sourced sustainably and in ways that will reduce CO2 emissions, not increase them?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. We are investing in trying to produce as much green hydrogen as we possibly can. It is a key area of hydrogen production, and we want to ensure that everything that we do is going to be carbon-neutral. Obviously, that is the kind of hydrogen that we want to produce.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying that the Government will publish a strategy, I think he said, in due course and in a little while. May I push him to do that as soon as possible and remind him that the industry needs certainty in order to make the investments necessary?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that question as well. Obviously, we will publish the strategy when we are ready to do so, and we want to press ahead with that. We want to make sure that the money we spend on investment takes the industry in the right direction. We are offering surety, first, by looking at the strategy and, secondly, by meeting the industry next week and by taking this issue seriously with all the investments that we are making at the moment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, building on the Government’s recently published carbon budget growth delivery plan, what further measures are the Government currently taking to support the growth of domestic hydrogen supply chains to reduce the UK’s reliance on imports of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Obviously, homegrown hydrogen is the way forward. The Government are considering expanding the clean industry bonus to hydrogen and will consult on proposals and publish the hydrogen strategy in the future. The UK is well placed to develop a thriving hydrogen technology, with the £1 billion Great British Energy supply fund and the £5.8 billion National Wealth Fund. We want to establish the first hydrogen network by 2031 with £500 million of government support. We are doing everything we can to make sure that this industry flourishes.
Telegraph Media Group
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fox
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of the withdrawal of the RedBird bid for ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the Secretary of State and I are acutely aware that the Telegraph and those who work there have been in limbo for too long. We are keen for this to be resolved as soon as possible in the public interest. The Secretary of State has now received a formal withdrawal of RedBird IMI’s request to progress the sale of the call option to RedBird Capital Partners. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot provide a running commentary or go into detail on this commercially sensitive live case. The Secretary of State will update Parliament when regulatory decisions are made.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. When the Government hastily tabled the statutory instrument that was specifically designed to allow RedBird to make its acquisition, it was crystal clear to many of us that the deal was wrong. Now the financial wreckage left behind by RedBird’s exit is very complex. For example, some reports suggest that Abu Dhabi-based International Media Investments could retain huge residual interest in the Telegraph and, depending on the final price of any sale, that could be well more than 15%. The Telegraph Media Group clearly needs a white knight acquirer, but to ensure the best interest does the Minister agree that none of the players involved in the deals to date should be driving the sale process? Does she also concede that, given DCMS’s failure to read the financial room, it too should stand aside in favour of the Cabinet Office or perhaps an external adviser experienced in dealing with these kinds of complex issues?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State has adhered to the letter of the law and diligently carried out her quasi-judicial responsibilities. There is no basis to the suggestion that the decision should be made elsewhere. Securing a swift outcome in the public interest is a priority for her, and she will continue to act within the bounds of the regulatory framework as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Noble Lords wanted powerful legislation to prevent foreign states from owning a stake in our newspapers and rightly so. Now we must allow for resolution to be sought to secure stability for the Telegraph.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is 18 months since this House effectively forced RedBird IMI to sell the Telegraph. It is more than unacceptable that the Telegraph’s ownership remains unresolved. Can the Minister confirm that IMI, the Emirati fund, cannot transfer any debt on to the Telegraph that it incurred from paying an inflated £500 million for the business and that such a poison pill would breach all legal limits on foreign state investment funds as well as the law preventing foreign states from owning, controlling or influencing a British newspaper?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The parties have given public assurances that this is not how the deal has been structured, which the Secretary of State was pleased to see, and I hope gives reassurance to the noble Baroness. They stated:
“The structure of the transaction has always been that upon any sale, the security and guarantees granted by the Telegraph companies in respect of the Redbird IMI loan will be fully extinguished and discharged. Further, the Telegraph would not assume any debt owed by the Barclay family”.
On that basis, it is not my current understanding that the Telegraph would be responsible for the debt. I hope that gives the noble Baroness the reassurances she requires.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has this uncertainty for the staff and for a great national newspaper not gone on long enough? Should the Secretary of State not use her powers to get the Competition and Markets Authority to put this on a block so that there is a proper option and normal order can be restored?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the potential approaches that might be taken at this stage, although I and the Secretary of State are keenly aware that the sale process has taken too long. We are clear about the negative impact of this uncertainty, not least on the Telegraph staff. For this reason, the Secretary of State will be moving this forward as a priority. However, the need for decisive action cannot overshadow the need for thorough and diligent consideration of the approach which will deliver the best outcome.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Has the Secretary of State thought about approaching the mutual world? It is highly successful in the United Kingdom at the moment, both in the financial dimension and across a whole spectrum of activity.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not privy to the Secretary of State’s thinking on this matter, but I will pass on the noble Lord’s suggestion.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Telegraph contributor and as the director of the Free Speech Union. Can the Minister assure the House that, in keeping with the principle that foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the editorial content of a British newspaper, foreign states should not be able to exercise any influence over the sale of a British newspaper either? To repeat the request of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, assuming that the Minister agrees with that principle, will she ask the Secretary of State to guarantee that RedBird IMI is not involved in the decision regarding to whom the Telegraph is sold?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I have said previously, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any live merger case. I agree with all noble Lords who have stated their support for the Telegraph, which is a world-renowned title, with a long and proud history that we want to see continue. The public interest intervention notice and pre-emptive action order on RedBird IMI’s proposed acquisition of the Telegraph both remain in place. As I have stated previously, the Secretary of State is keen to make sure that the matter is resolved, as she agrees, as I am sure do noble Lords from across the House, that the sale process is taking too long.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s understanding of the limbo in which this leaves the Telegraph’s journalists and readers. We all understand that there are commercial sensitivities and quasi-judicial processes that have to be respected here, but these add to the sense of frustration that is experienced by potential buyers, vendors, Parliament and the public alike. Do the Government have any plans, when this is finally resolved, to look again at the Enterprise Act regime that governs it, to ensure that we have protections in place for our media, but also so that we can send a clear signal that the UK is open to investment from potential businesses?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK is most certainly open for investment. It is probably premature for me to do a review of a sale that has not yet taken place, but I assure your Lordships’ House that any lessons that can be learned from what has happened over the past year or so will be.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the Minister said that it was premature to look into this unless and until the sale took place. Surely part of this sorry story—the “will she, won’t she?”—relates to the pre-sale process, and that is something that should be looked at just as much as what has happened after any hypothetical sale that may or may not occur.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a fair comment, and I will pass on his comments to the Secretary of State.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain some contradictions here? On the one hand, the Government are quite keen that a foreign Government should not own a UK newspaper, while being simultaneously content for foreign Governments, including dictatorships, to own UK water, energy, rail, ports, airports, oil, gas, hospitals, care homes, GP surgeries and more. Why this hypocrisy about foreign Governments that is just applicable to newspapers?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend is allowing me to explain why we want a pluralistic free press. It is fundamental to our democracy. I think that there is a difference between foreign investment in other parts of the UK economy, including utilities, and the free press that is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, and which we want to continue without foreign state interference.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government are actively concerned about balance in the broadcast media. Are they also concerned about the maintenance of balance in the written media?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We would love to have a bit more balance in the written media. However, I am absolutely committed, as is the Secretary of State, to continuing to see the Telegraph remain as one of the key newspapers among a whole host of newspapers with centuries-old traditions.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, as no one else is seeking to ask a question, may I just return to this? The Minister seems to be suggesting in her answers that the Telegraph’s future remains in the destiny or hands of RedBird IMI, which has been found to be non-compliant with the law that Parliament has passed. Can I press the Minister again on the question that I asked? She suggested that they were not indicating that they would do something to transfer the debt, but surely the law prevents them from doing what has been reported and sounds so horrific in relation to this poison pill?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Unfortunately, I can only repeat the response that I gave previously. It is not my understanding that the Telegraph will be responsible for the debt. I will clarify to the noble Baroness in writing the extent to which that is because of the law or the extent to which it is because of the commitment, but we are absolutely clear that the Telegraph is not responsible for the debt.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first in a number of groups of government amendments. I apologise for the large number of amendments before the Committee today. Their core aim is to apply various additional provisions in the Bill to Scotland and/or Northern Ireland. They reflect the outcome of further engagement with the Scottish Government and relevant Northern Ireland departments since the Bill’s introduction, which is why we have tabled so many amendments today. That has happened since February.
In each case, we are bringing forward these amendments at the request of the devolved Governments. The amendments unavoidably cover a significant number of pages of the Marshalled List, but I assure noble Lords that, importantly, in general they do not import new policy into the Bill. The amendments all relate to the offensive weapons provisions in Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Bill. These will contribute to our safer streets mission to halve knife crime in a decade. I am pleased to report that, even now, in the latest crime survey, figures for the year to the end of June show a 5% reduction in knife-enabled offences. This is to be welcomed, but of course there is much more to do.
Clause 28 amends Sections 141 and 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. It increases the maximum penalty for offences relating to offensive weapons from six months to two years imprisonment. This includes the offence of manufacturing, selling, hiring, offering for hire, lending or possessing in private any prohibited offensive weapon as detailed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. Also covered here is the offence of selling a knife or bladed article to anyone under the age of 18.
Amendments 57 to 70 to Clause 28 simply extend the increase of the maximum penalty for those offences to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Government. Existing legislation in England and Wales provides that anyone over 18 years of age found guilty of any of these offences will face a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. We believe that the maximum penalty does not reflect the seriousness of these offences and should be increased in line with the current offence of unlawful marketing of knives, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. This will align the maximum penalties for the offences in relation to the sale of knives.
In Clauses 31 and 32 we are introducing a stricter two-step age-verification check for the sale and delivery of knives bought online. These provisions will require at the point of sale specific checks of a photographic identity document and a current photograph of the buyer, as well as photographic identity checks at the point of delivery, be it a residential address or a collection point. In addition, we are providing for a new offence of delivering a package containing a knife to someone other than the buyer if the buyer is an individual, as opposed to, for example, a company, so that knives cannot be left on doorsteps or with neighbours. These are both welcome measures.
Amendments 71, 72 and 74 confirm that, under Section 141B of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, where a passport or driving licence is used as proof of age for a remote sale of a knife, it is required to be a copy of a physical version. We are, however, adding provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations—subject to affirmative procedure, so that this House and the Commons have the opportunity to debate them further—so that alternative means of age verification such as digital ID, including digital passports and digital driving licences, can be used. These amendments are required to ensure that the appropriate digital proofs can be used as evidence of identity in place of a physical document, and that the necessary safeguards can be attached to their use.
It is clear that many consumers already expect to be able to use digital forms of ID, rather than just the physical version, to prove to a seller they are aged 18 or over in order to purchase knives or crossbows. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 lays the foundation for trusted digital verification services that are already widely used across the economy. Digital versions of government-issued documents such as driving licences and veteran cards will become available soon. For both consumers who buy and businesses that sell knives or crossbows, it is also important to provide consistency with the existing position across different sectors where digital age verification is used or soon will be—for example, in the purchase of other age-restricted products such as alcohol and tobacco, or for gambling.
The other amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 extend the provisions made by these clauses for England and Wales to Scotland, and the additional clause makes provision for Northern Ireland. This is at the request of both devolved Governments.
I apologise for the length of the discussion on the amendments in this group. The amendments to Clauses 33 and 34 relate to the Crossbows Act 1987, which requires that crossbows, or parts of a crossbow, can only be sold or let on hire to someone aged 18 or over. Clauses 33 and 34 introduce the same stricter two-step age-verification checks for the sale and letting on hire of crossbows, or parts of crossbows bought or let on hire online, that have been introduced for the sale and delivery of knives bought online.
Government Amendments 124 to 189 extend the provisions in Clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland—again, at the request of the Scottish Government—and Amendments 190 to 192 insert new clauses that amend the Crossbows (Northern Ireland) Order to ensure that stricter age-verification checks for the sale, letting on hire and delivery of crossbows also apply to Northern Ireland. It is important that there is a cross-UK approach on these significant issues.
Finally, Clause 36 provides for the mandatory reporting of the bulk sale of knives. Clause 36 defines reportable sales as the purchase of six knives in a single transaction in England and Wales, or when made over two or more occasions in a 30-day period. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person, or up to two or more persons where these are to be delivered to the same residential address. As noble Lords probably know, there are exemptions for business sales and for sales of cutlery knives without a sharp point, safety razor blades, and pocketknives with a cutting edge that does not exceed 3 inches.
There will also be exemptions for qualifying sets of knives, such as kitchen knife blocks. These will be sets of at least three knives that are each of a different size or shape, no matter how many knives the set contains—we are all very familiar with that type of kitchen equipment. The purchase of multiple sets of knives, or the purchase of a single set alongside individual knives where these combinations lead to a total purchase of at least six knives, will also be reportable.
That is what is currently in the Bill. Amendments 193 to 209 extend these provisions to Scotland, and similar provisions are also being introduced for Northern Ireland, so, again, there is consistency across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are various consequential and drafting amendments at the back of the Bill relating to the power to make consequential amendments. But, in essence, the policy positions in the Bill, through these Government amendments, are being replicated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise to ask on a point of information and declare an interest: I chair the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme board. In the list of identifications for proof of age purposes, I did not hear the noble Lord say that the PASS card was acceptable. It is a Home Office-approved document and is widely used. Maybe he said it and I missed it—we were going at quite a pace—but could he confirm that the physical proof of age card is still acceptable for these purposes?
We are expecting the mandatory conditions for digital proof of age to be published before Christmas, possibly. Is the noble Lord able to confirm that the Government are still on track to publish these changes so that sales of alcohol and other proof of age purposes can be done by a digital proof of age card as well as by a physical card?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think I can say yes to both those points. If I cannot, I shall revert to her shortly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the intent behind this blizzard of government amendments. Of course, as the Minister says, the effect of these amendments and other consequential changes is to apply tougher maximum penalties and provisions relating to offensive weapons in Scotland and, in certain cases, Northern Ireland.
It would be extremely useful if the Minister could say whether the law in each of the home nations is the same. I assume that is the effect of all these different amendments—that the UK should be on exactly the same footing, however and wherever you commit that offence. Even though I understand that it was at the request, in the first instance, of the Scottish Government.
We very much support the way in which the amendments reflect the gravity of the kinds of violence that plague our communities from these offensive weapons and that the manufacture, supply and possession of these articles will be met with the full force of the law. We welcome not only the amendments but the original provisions of the Bill, but we need to think of not just penalties but prevention. I hope some of those provisions will make individuals accountable with the digital identity, which we also support.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like an answer to the question of whether the analogue identity provision will continue. Otherwise, that could lead to forms of digital exclusion, which I do not think that we or the Minister would welcome.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments, which I will respond to in a moment, but it is important that I clarify the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was half right. The answer “yes” is to the question of passports; it is correct that digital passports or driving licences can be approved documents. There is a power by regulation to add other documents; at the moment, the PASS card is not added to that as a form of identification, but obviously it potentially can be in due course, if Governments decide to add that. That will again be subject to regulation. I apologise, but the noble Baroness asked me a question and I gave her the answer in good faith, but it is best that we clarify that point now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group essentially encompasses several different groups of amendments; perhaps they should have been separated, but we are where we are. Two of those groups within this very large group are, I would argue, quite uncontroversial. I have absolutely no issue with the Government increasing the maximum penalties for the offence in Clause 28 in Scotland, and for extending the provision in Clauses 31, 32 and 35 to Northern Ireland and Scotland. I have no issue with the government amendments about the bulk sale of knives.
I do, however, take issue with government Amendments 71, 72, 73, 74, 85, 86, 110, 111, 129, 130, 141, 142, 170, 171, 185, 186, 187 and 188. These amend the Bill to permit the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying further forms of identification that can be used for age-verification purposes relating to the online sale and the delivery of knives and crossbows. That might seem innocuous at first, but all it takes is to look at the explanatory statements to realise what these amendments are really about. The explanatory statement for Amendment 71 says that the amendment
“allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing an alternative process for age verification (such as digital ID)”.
That is the point.
What is happening here is that the Government are attempting perhaps to sneak in provisions permitting digital ID by the backdoor. I say that the Government are sneaking these in, because they have not only tabled amendments to change clauses already in the Bill but included the regulation-making power permitting digital ID in the drafting of the new clauses that extend provisions to Northern Ireland and Scotland. On top of that, they have lumped these amendments together with all the others in this enormous group. I can only assume that the Government hoped that perhaps no one would notice their attempts to take the very first step towards legislating for mandatory digital ID. That is why we cannot support these amendments.
The Government will perhaps attempt to play this off as a small and practical change to allow Ministers to retain flexibility by allowing new age-verification processes, but that is a red herring. Digital ID is an affront to our rights, and the Government have repeatedly stated that it will not be mandatory, that it is no big deal and that it will simply make things easier. Yet here we are with the Government seeking to insert provisions for digital ID into the Crime and Policing Bill. They have not even enacted the policy, yet they are already trying to expand its purpose. Does this not tell us all we need to know? They say that it will not be mandatory, but how can we ever be sure of that?
We notified the Government of our opposition to these amendments in advance to let them know that we would not accept any amendments to this Bill, or for that matter any Bill, that enables digital ID. It is in that spirit that I tabled my Amendments 72A, 72B, 87A and 131A to remove provisions in the Bill that permit the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify other identity documents. My Amendments 75A, 75B, 75C, 76A, 76B, 76C, 190A, 190B, 191A and 191B amend the government amendments for that same purpose. If the Government accept these proposed changes to their amendments—that is, if they accept that there can be no power to specify digital ID for the purposes of these clauses—I have no further concerns with them. However, if they do not want to accept my changes to their amendments to remove the ability to specify digital ID for age-verification purposes here, then we will not be able to support them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I am genuinely sorry. I understand where he is coming from, and I am grateful to him and the Opposition Whips’ Office for giving notification that they would have concerns over those matters, but I am sorry that he has done it. We are in the 21st century; digital ID is becoming a commonplace issue. I understand that we are going to have steps to have age verification, such as acceptable digital ID, as the norm in future.
As I set out earlier, it is to allow different forms of digital ID to be used to verify purchasers’ identity information. When changes to the acceptable proofs of identity, digital or otherwise, are proposed, they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there would have been an opportunity for the noble Lord, and in both Houses, to oppose or question at that time, but I understand where he is coming from. I am of the view that as technology progresses, there will be different types of digital ID which might be acceptable. It is not an attempt by the Government to speed up or usurp the process; it is just future-proofing, because there may be digital ID on a range of issues.
As an example, I have a digital and a hard copy of my railcard. I show both at different times, depending on which one is easiest to get to. Digital ID is progressing, and it will continue to do so. There are potentially new digital documents, such as the recently announced digital ID card, coming downstream. As with any new legislation, that is still a matter for Parliament to consider, but if a Bill comes before the House—after the outcome of a consultation, it might be in the next few weeks—that is something we are trying to future-proof accordingly.
I hope that, given those assurances, the noble Lord is prepared to support all the amendments, but I guess that he will not—that is a reasonable position for him to take and one we must look at. To help him today, in a genuine spirit of trying to help, if the noble Lord remains unpersuaded, which I think he is—he confirms that he is—I will move only Amendments 57 to 70 and Amendments 193 to 209 to Clauses 28 and 29, respectively. I will not move Amendment 210A, which makes equivalent provision for Northern Ireland to that contained in Clause 36 and, in due course, the related consequential and drafting amendments to the Bill, so that we can look at these matters on Report and not have that debate and discussion today. At this stage, I will not move the amendments to Clauses 31 to 35 and the associated back-of-the-Bill consequential amendments. The Committee should rest assured that I will bring them back on Report, and if the noble Lord has his disagreements then, we will test the House. If the House votes one way, we accept it; if it votes the other way, we potentially test the House again. That is a matter for discussion and debate downstream.
There is nothing to fear from the proposals for someone having a digital ID and showing it when receiving a knife or weapon through the post. That is not something to be afraid of. We are in the 21st century—I am in the 21st century at least, let us put it that way. We will go from there.
I also assure the noble Lord that paper documents such as passports and driving licences will be acceptable as forms of ID, as well as potentially any digital versions of those in due course. I hope that satisfies his question.
I welcome, in a spirit of co-operation and consensus, the agreement from both Front Benches to the provisions for Northern Ireland and Scotland, so that in those areas there is a United Kingdom response from the three Administrations who deal with these matters in a devolved or non-devolved way. I commend the amendments I said I would move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I thank him for what he said. I am slightly baffled. There is no Bench more strongly against compulsory digital ID than the Liberal Democrat Benches, so I find the Minister’s assurance that the analogue form of identity will continue—and digital ID in this instance, whatever is prescribed by the Secretary of State, is an alternative form of identification—wholly convincing, but if we must come back on Report and debate this at length, so be it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the noble Lord respond on the mandatory conditions on the digital proof-of-age pass, which he confirmed would be published before December?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a date at the moment, but I will reflect on that with colleagues and return to her, because there are a number of other departmental interests as well.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(da) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.
“(ia) in paragraph (b) for “6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale” substitute “12 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(cb) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to penalties for a conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(aa) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to penalties for a conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
“(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, and provides for the penalties available.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
“(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and provides for the penalties available.
“(ia) in paragraph (b) for “6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale” substitute “12 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the maximum term of imprisonment and maximum fine on summary conviction in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1A) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
“(d) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows trial on indictment in Scotland for an offence under section 1(1A) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, and provides for the penalties available.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I cannot call Amendments 75A, 75B or 75C, as they are amendments to Amendment 75, which has not been moved.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I cannot call Amendments 76A, 76B or 76C, as they are amendments to Amendment 76, which has not been moved.
Clause 32: Delivery of knives etc
Lord Clement-Jones
“Sale and delivery of knives: review(1) The Secretary of State must review the impact of sections 31 and 32 of this Act within two years of these sections coming into force.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the effect of sections 31 and 32 in preventing the online sale of knives to those under the age of 18,(b) whether safety design regulation would limit the availability of knives that may be used in violent offences, and(c) what mechanisms could be used to improve data collection by the police of bladed articles used in all knife-related crimes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of sections 31 and 32 in preventing the online sale of knives to under 18s, and requires the review to look at other measures that might limit the availability of knives that could be used in violent offences.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, while we welcome the effort to strengthen accountability for businesses and sellers in tackling online knife sales, we must ensure that these new powers are effective, enforceable and subject to continuous review.
In moving Amendment 122, I also speak to Amendment 194. Both aim to enhance the long-term effectiveness and impact of this legislation. Amendment 122 would insert a new clause immediately after Clause 32. It would mandate that the Secretary of State conducts a review of the impact of Sections 31 and 32 of what will be the Act within two years of these provisions coming into force.
New powers addressing the remote sale of knives are crucial, yet legislative intervention alone is rarely sufficient to address a complex societal challenge such as knife crime. I recall some years ago running a project in the London Borough of Lambeth on precisely this issue, and it was extremely complex dealing with young people in this particular area. We must ensure that the mechanisms we are implementing, such as the requirement for physical ID on delivery and the provisions for age verification, and indeed those mentioned by the Minister, moving towards digital verification, are actually achieving the desired result and preventing the online sale of knives to under-18s. The review must go beyond merely confirming compliance. Crucially, it must also look at other measures that might limit the availability of knives that could be used in violent offences, such as the design of knives—for instance, by changing kitchen knives available online to rounded ends.
Home Office statistics indicate that two-thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in a single year are kitchen knives. We are very much on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with his Amendment 123. We must not stand still but use real-world evidence of what works in tackling and preventing violent crime. We need to continuously monitor and assess the effectiveness of the solutions we put in place. Amendment 194 relates to Clause 36:
“Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk”.
Clause 36 introduces the requirement for sellers to report bulk sales, an essential provision for tackling the grey market and ensuring accountability. However, for this provision to be an effective law enforcement tool, the information reported must be timely.
My amendment would require regulations made under Clause 36(1) to include a clear provision that any reportable sale must be notified to the specified person in real time or as soon as is reasonably practicable. Furthermore, to eliminate any ambiguity, the amendment would set a hard stop specifying that notification must occur, in any event, no later than the delivery of the bladed articles or the end of the day on which the seller became aware that the sale constituted a reportable sale. If we expect law enforcement agencies to use this reporting data to intervene and prevent crimes, giving them advance warning is paramount. A delay in reporting a suspicious bulk purchase renders the power largely reactive rather than preventive, and this amendment would simply ensure that the regulations implement the duty to report as soon as possible, turning bureaucratic compliance into actionable intelligence. I hope the Government will support Amendment 122 to ensure accountability and scrutiny over time and Amendment 194 to ensure that the immediate operational impact of the new bulk reporting duties is maximised. I beg to move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 123 says:
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a consultation”—
as a teacher, marking my own homework, I realise that the drafting is then wrong and it should say “on a ban on sharp-tipped knives”. In this, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I am a teacher, and two years ago my school lost a student to knife crime. With respect to my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool, who is not in his place but who at Second Reading warned that there must not be too much law, I will use the analogy that amendments are like cars: everybody agrees that there are too many but nobody wants to give up their own. According to the ONS, last year 46% of homicides in the UK were with a sharp instrument, and 50% of those were with a kitchen knife. It was 52% the year before. Combat knives account for 6% and zombie knives 2%. Are we looking in the wrong direction here? Should we be looking within the home?
I am very grateful to Graham Farrell, professor of crime science at the University of Leeds, the Youth Endowment Fund and the Ben Kinsella Trust for their help. If anybody has not watched Idris Elba’s brilliantly thought-provoking film “Our Knife Crime Crisis”, I heartily recommend it. It is still available on BBC iPlayer.
Pointed-tipped knives are significantly more lethal than round-tipped knives, as shown by forensic studies on penetrative damage. A rounded knife will not penetrate clothing, let alone kill. Domestic settings are high-risk environments—especially for women—in which kitchen knives are readily available and often used in fatal attacks. Blade magazine disagrees. It says:
“The harsh truth is this: no amount of blunted blades, banned kitchen knives, or bureaucratic licensing schemes will stop individuals hell-bent on violence. You can’t legislate evil out of existence by targeting inanimate objects. England doesn’t have a knife problem—it has a people problem. A system problem. A failure-to-act-when-it-matters problem”.
But it is not the situation in which a perpetrator has planned their attack and carefully obtained or adapted a weapon to kill that this would prevent. It is the impulse homicide, particularly within a home environment, that we are trying to reduce here.
Situational crime prevention theory supports reducing crime opportunities by altering environments and tools, such as replacing lethal knives with safer ones. Rounded-tipped knives reduce temptation and harm, making impulsive violence less deadly without affecting culinary function. Small paring knives that do not penetrate far enough could be used in kitchens where a sharp point is really needed. Evidence also shows that crime rarely displaces to other weapons when access to one is restricted. Alternative weapons, such as scissors or screwdrivers, are less effective and less available and carry a lower status, thereby reducing their appeal. Dining knives are already rounded, showing a public tolerance for safer designs in everyday life. There are also policy parallels, with phase-outs such as incandescent light bulbs, diesel cars and the smoking ban.
The expected outcomes from this include a halving of knife-related homicides, reducing other knife crimes and preventing thousands of injuries. Can we please just have a consultation on this?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to make observations about Amendments 122 and 123. I am not against a review or a consultation, but I make the point that these are not cost-free. Reviews and consultations take up a lot of time within departments and are expensive, and we need to keep that in mind when this House authorises them.
My point is very narrow and applies to both the review and the consultation. It is perfectly true that the sharp-bladed knife is a matter of very great concern to the public, and rightly so. It is important to keep in mind, however, that sharp-bladed knives also have legitimate purposes. My point is that when we authorise the review or consultation, we need to be sure that the scope of the review or consultation is sufficiently wide to address the balance between banning, or further banning, sharp-bladed knives and the impact on those who use them for proper purposes. In other words, the scope of the review or consultation must consider the issue of proportionality when we come to any further proposed changes. That is the only point that I want to make, but it goes to both the review and the consultation.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, once again, I find myself in the rather scary position of seeing some considerable merit in the suggestion of a Lib Dem Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I will also comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who also advocated for controls on knives.
There is merit in having a review, or otherwise, of the measures in the Bill. However, I would go further and say that we probably need a wide-ranging review of all the measures successive Governments have taken to try to crack down on knife crime as, despite all our efforts, we cannot manage to do it. I was the Home Office Minister who took through the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, followed up the next year by the Knives Act 1997. That was building on Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will reply quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and also the noble Viscount. I am not against sharp-edged knives. I have a very good knife that cuts through a Savoy cabbage and does a great job with everything I need in the kitchen. It is just rounded at the edge, so I cannot stab my wife with it.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the key finding of the Clayman review was the need for better police data recording on knife crime. Officers often fail to note the specific type of knife used, with further gaps around sales and marketing. Amendment 122 recognises that, without understanding the threat, it is difficult to counter it, so the evidence base must be improved.
The amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Clement-Jones, promote a policing approach to reduce opportunities for crime through better design of our buildings, known as designing out crime. I have spoken to a number of chief police officers who have tried this, with great effect. They are very happy about how this can happen and would really like to see it rolled out. This preventive approach aligns with the Liberal Democrat position and I hope the Government will give it serious attention.
We welcome the Government’s proposals on this part of the Bill, but laws work only if they are enforceable. Again, the Clayman review said that police currently lack the training, know-how and resources to police online knife sales effectively.
Can I ask the Minister about the policing of overseas suppliers, since this is where many of these lethal weapons originate? What plans are in place to monitor imports? The Clayman review found that there is often very poor co-ordination between Border Force and police and noted the difficulty in getting data from tech and communication companies based overseas. Can the Minister mention that when he winds up, please?
Clayman also suggested an import licensing scheme to ensure that a licence is required to bring knives into the UK. He proposed revisiting the tax levy on imported knives to ensure that potential weapons brought into the country are easier to track and identify. Do the Government intend to implement either of those recommendations?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this group contains sensible and prudent amendments. They require us to review the effectiveness of the Government’s measures and to consider carefully the potential implications of the new regulations around the sale of knives. They also seek to ensure that we have the necessary evidence base to improve legislation where needed. These, in our view, are good principles.
Amendment 122 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, contains both those elements. The first part of the amendment seeks a review within two years of the effectiveness of the measures in preventing the online sale of knives to persons under the age of 18. This would plainly be sensible. There is little point in legislating to prevent something if we find out that in fact that prohibition is not taking effect. We all want to stop the sale of knives to children, but we should want to do so in the most effective and proportionate manner. By reviewing the impact of the Bill, the Government would be able to make the necessary adjustments in response to the evidence. Having said that, we should listen carefully to the observations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham in this respect.
Another aspect of the question of efficacy is our obligation to the law-abiding public. It is right that we should attempt to ban children from purchasing knives. We are all aware of the severity of the knife crime epidemic and that part of the problem is the easy access to knives. But we should not pretend that the entire problem stems from their online availability. Of course, it is a factor, but children and young persons intent on committing knife crime will have plenty of other opportunities, if they are determined enough, to buy knives and to acquire them from other sources. They could use an older friend’s or family member’s identification, or indeed, they could ask them simply to make the purchase. They could steal a knife—given the current rates of shoplifting, I suspect this already happens—or they might simply go no further than their kitchen drawer and take one of the many easily accessible knives there.
By adding restrictions to online sale, the Government are merely stemming one route of access, but doing so adds an extra burden to the great majority of law-abiding citizens and retailers. As I have said, we understand why action is necessary, but, if we are to make it mandatory, we should ensure that it is genuinely effective in practice. Here, we should listen to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. We must know, therefore, that we are not adding regulation for its own sake and that we are simultaneously taking other meaningful measures to address the wider issue. The Government should continue to explore this further.
Proposed subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c) in Amendment 122 address another aspect of the knife problem. While the first part reviews the effect of the Bill on the sale of knives, these subsections turn to the design and legality of the knives themselves.
If the knives which we make harder to purchase are not the ones being used in knife crime, our efforts will be in vain. Collecting data both on knives sold and, separately, on knives used in crimes, as Amendment 194 argues for, could offer a remedy for this. It would provide the Government with the necessary data to identify which types of weapons in particular lie at the root of the problem and to take action accordingly. This principle also underlies Amendment 123—I had already noted the typo, if I can put it that way, and have marked the noble Lord’s homework accordingly. But, taking it seriously, consulting on what knives are used in offending and on the measures to be required to curb their circulation must be sensible and proportionate, and it should complement the Government’s proposals.
This is a moderate group of amendments on a subject that clearly needs further review and refinement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the Government’s position. At the same time, I think we need to hear carefully and take heed of what noble Lords have said in their words of caution on this topic.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hampton, for setting out the case for these amendments, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for bringing his front-line experience of the tragedy in the school in which he currently works. I am also grateful for the comments of other noble Lords and I will try to respond to those in due course. I note the broad support from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for the amendments before the Committee today.
I want to start with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I accept that there have been numerous attempts by numerous Governments to take numerous courses of action to reduce knife crime and that this is another one. But I just say to him that it is still worth trying, and it is still worth examining how we can best reduce the level of knife crime. The measures in the Bill before the Committee today are an honest attempt by the Government to put further obstacles in the way of individuals who might use those knives for nefarious purposes. I simply say it is worth trying, and we are seeking to do that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, Amendment 122 would require the Home Secretary to review the effectiveness of Clauses 31 and 32 in preventing sales to under-18s within two years of those clauses coming into force. I agree in principle that we should have to keep under review the impact of those measures, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned: to look at what works and what has not worked.
The Government are providing £1.75 million of funding for a new national police co-ordination unit to tackle the online sale of knives, and the police will be responsible for enforcing this legislation. I hear the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about enforcement but it is for the police to understand the legislation’s effectiveness and what more can be done to tackle knife crime. I will return to the other points that she mentioned in due course.
It is standard practice—I hope this helps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—that all measures in the Bill will be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. This scrutiny will consider the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill; self-evidently, that includes Clauses 31 and 32. The noble Lord is asking for a two-year review; it will be undertaken within three to five years. I hope that reassures him that the measures will be reviewed in a timely and appropriate way—and, again, to learn the lessons that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned that we need to examine.
Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would require the Government to consult on regulating the sale of sharp-tipped knives and provide a report to Parliament. The design of knives is also addressed in Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham: bladed articles with pointed ends have legitimate uses. They are often needed for a wide range of purposes: they are used as tools in work, and for farming, fishing and cooking. The Government are keen to try to strike the right balance between allowing access to knives for legitimate reasons, which the noble Viscount ably outlined, and the need to protect the public from dangerous weapons.
If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the Government are actively exploring options for how we can strengthen enforcement and prevention measures, including consulting on a licensing scheme for all knife sellers in the future. I hope that the noble Lord can accept that as I progress the discussion today.
Amendment 194 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would require regulations relating to the reporting of remote sales of knives to ensure that such reporting takes place as soon as possible following a bulk sale. I am sympathetic to the overall aim of the amendment. Clause 36 provides for a duty to report remote sales of knives in bulk. It makes it mandatory for online sellers to report bulk sales. It defines those bulk sales as purchases of six or more knives, two or more qualifying sets of knives or one qualifying set or five knives, in a single transaction or made over two or more occasions within a 30-day period. That is set out in Clause 36. In the latter case, relevant sales include those made to a single person or two or more persons where they are believed to be delivered to the same residential address.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, before I come to the Minister’s very constructive response, I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been a very valuable debate, and we have had a huge degree of consensus on the way forward. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had to say about there being no easy answers. I would say that he is lethal not just at the checkout but elsewhere in this House.
On a serious note, we have a common cause here to prevent knife crime in any way we possibly can. I very much appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, had to say with his experience as a headteacher. He quite rightly gave Idris Elba a namecheck, as he has done so much towards the cause of knife crime prevention. I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, had to say in caveating this kind of review. It could be as specific as the Minister has said, in looking in particular at design. He certainly indicated that in his response.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—and I very much appreciate the support from the Opposition Front Bench. As he says, it is legitimate to seek adjustments in response to the evidence; that is a very important point that was made. When he says that this is a moderate measure, I will take that; I think moderate is good in this context.
I come to what the Minister had to say. He said that the current provisions were an honest attempt to tackle these issues. I entirely take that, but I also took a lot of comfort from what he said about what the Government are doing to explore further preventive measures, including perhaps licensing schemes, or whatever. I very much hope that, between Committee and Report, we can discover a bit more about the shape of that. I also took comfort in what he had to say about the content of the regulations: that appropriate timescales would be included in those regulations.
On the basis of those two assurances—I think the Minister has responded—we can take some comfort in the fact that we are not only seeking answers but continuing to question whether we have all the answers.
Lord Hampton (CB)
Before the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sits down, can I correct a quick note of fact? It is very kind of him to promote me massively, but I am a simple design technology teacher. I have a very good headteacher way above me.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I cannot call Amendment 131A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 131.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I cannot call Amendments 190A and 190B, as they are amendments to Amendment 190.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
I cannot call Amendments 191A and 191B, as they are amendments to Amendment 191.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the requirement to report bulk sales to include deliveries to anywhere in the UK that meet the specified criteria, not just deliveries in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the wording of new section 141D of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to make it consistent with the wording of existing section 141B.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 36, page 55, line 34.
“(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;(c) on conviction on indictment in Scotland, to a fine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for the new section 141D inserted by clause 36(1) to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales. It sets out the penalties for offences under the section committed in Scotland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a reference to England and Wales that is no longer needed because new section 141D is to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales (see my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29).
“(17) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
“(b) in section 66(2) (guidance by Scottish Ministers) after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) section 141D of that Act as it has effect in relation to Scotland,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to clause 200, page 230, line 29, which provides for new section 141D to extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Duty to report remote sale of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland(1) The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) is amended as follows.(2) After Article 54A insert—“54B Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk(1) A person (“the seller”) must, in accordance with requirements specified in an order made by the Department of Justice, report to the person specified in the order any reportable sales the seller makes of bladed articles.(2) A reportable sale of bladed articles occurs where the seller, in any of the ways set out in paragraph (4), sells—(a) six or more bladed articles, none of which form a qualifying set of bladed articles;(b) two or more qualifying sets of bladed articles;(c) one or more qualifying sets of bladed articles and five or more bladed articles that do not form a qualifying set.(3) “Qualifying set of bladed articles” means three or more bladed articles packaged together for sale as a single item, where each bladed article is a different size or shape from the others.(4) The ways are—(a) in a single remote sale where the bladed articles are to be delivered to an address in the United Kingdom, or(b) in two or more remote sales in any period of 30 days—(i) to one person, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to one or more addresses in the United Kingdom, or(ii) to two or more persons, where the bladed articles are to be delivered to the same residential premises in the United Kingdom.(5) A sale of bladed articles is “remote” if the seller is not in the presence of the person (“the buyer”) to whom the bladed articles are sold at the time of the sale.(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5) the seller is not in the presence of the buyer at the time of the sale if—(a) where the seller is an individual, the seller or a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time;(b) where the seller is not an individual, a person acting on the seller’s behalf is not in the presence of the buyer at that time.(7) A sale is not reportable if the buyer—(a) informs the seller that the buyer is carrying on a business, and(b) is—(i) registered for value added tax under the Value Added Tax Act 1994, or(ii) registered as a company under the Companies Act 2006.(8) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (1) commits an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph (8) to show that the person took all reasonable precautions, and exercised all due diligence, to avoid commission of the offence.(10) A person is to be taken to have shown a matter for the purposes of this Article if—(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.(11) A person who commits an offence under paragraph (8) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.(12) In this section—(a) “bladed article” means an article to which Article 54 applies, other than a knife which does not have a sharp point and is designed for eating food;(b) “residential premises” means premises used for residential purposes (whether or not also used for other purposes).(13) An order made by the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) may in particular include requirements about—(a) how reports are to be made,(b) when reports to be made, and(c) the information reports must include.(14) The Department of Justice may by order amend—(a) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(a);(b) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(b);(c) the number of qualifying sets specified in paragraph (2)(c);(d) the number of bladed articles specified in paragraph (2)(c);(e) the period specified in paragraph (4)(b).”.(3) In Article 57 (rules and orders)—(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1);(b) in that paragraph for “or 54(3)(c)” substitute “, 54(3)(c) or 54B(1)”;(c) after that paragraph insert—“(2) An order may not be made under Article 54B(14) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”(4) In the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, in section 66(3) (guidance by Department of Justice) after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) Article 54B of that Order (duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made for England and Wales by clause 36.
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Defence of historical importanceAfter section 141(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offensive weapons), insert—“(7B) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of that person relating to a weapon to which this section applies—(a) with an offence under subsection (1), or(b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),to show that the weapon in question is one of historical importance.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies a similar historical importance defence to that introduced by item (sa) (Zombie Style Knives and Machetes) and item (u) (Ninja Swords) of Section 141 CJA 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. If the owner of a historic weapon can satisfy defence 7A (Ownership in private), then there is no good reason preventing them passing the item on to the next custodian in a similar manner to an item which is antique (100 years).
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 211, 212, 213 and 214 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support in these amendments.
This area is about producing consistency and fairness. I would not like anyone to be confused about thinking that I wanted to be more liberal—not Liberal Democrat, but liberal—about knife crime. It is about producing consistency for people who possess knives with innocent intent. Generally speaking, I welcome the update of the penalties associated with offensive weapons under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 and Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in line with more modern regulation. I suggest that, as well as reviewing the penalties, it is appropriate for us now to review the defences as set out in my Amendments 211 to 214.
The last two pieces of legislation on zombie knives and ninja swords have included a range of defences, such as historical importance, being a blunt weapon or skilled handmade items, in addition to existing global defences of religious ceremony, Crown and visiting forces, antique theatrical and media productions, museums—when the public have access—and ownership for educational purposes. In the new legislation, items such as zombie-style knives, machetes and ninja swords have the defence of historical importance, which applies to sale, gift, loan and importation. In my view, there is no good reason for that not to apply as a defence in a consistent global manner to the other 20 items in that schedule.
For example, if the family of a World War II veteran or a collector can prove that the item they own in private is historically important, it allows them to own it legally, so there is no good reason to prevent them passing it on to the next custodian. The defence relates to the nature of the item, not the person who owns it. We should feel confident that, in doing this, it will follow what happened in 2018, when many thousands of historical weapons from the trenches of World War I dropped out of the scope of the legislation because they became antiques. That was not accompanied by a surge in crime involving these knives. Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime; they are far too expensive for that, and, with the public interest in the end of World War I, the only surge seen was a rise not in crime but in the auction prices they realised because they became antiques and were, therefore, more valuable.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will just say a word about Amendment 213. I shall come back more fully to a discussion of the principles in the fifth group of amendments, but there is a danger that a range of agricultural and gardening tools will be caught. I have in mind, for example, machetes, bill-hooks and hand scythes—all of which will be found in various parts of my house. I think it is a very good thing that we should make the exemption clear.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the points made and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, supported by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. We are in the territory of unintended consequences. The Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach. Where there are lacunae and mishaps in complex swathes of legislation, with many successive Acts on knives and similar offensive weapons, we need to take the opportunity to correct those. I certainly support the derogation for agricultural, gardening or conservation purposes, and for weapons of historical importance, collectables and so forth. These seem to be very pragmatic measures, which I support.
I am not knowledgeable on the subject of truncheons. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, even with his experience did not use his. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, at Second Reading saying that he made “liberal use” of it in an arrest with the result of blood “being spattered” onto his uniform. I guess experience varies, but I support the noble Lord’s efforts today.
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)
My Lords, I also support the amendments put forward by my friend and colleague, my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe. I will address the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for a short period. He was a Minister, as was one other person in this Committee, when I was a senior police officer. I do not remember the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, once instigating or taking through legislation that did not have an effect. That is a fact.
The other thing I am going to disclose—I was going to keep it secret, but I know I can trust all of you and that you are all positively vetted—is that when the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, left he was given a helmet, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. She was also an extremely effective Minister in my time. The noble Lord was offered a truncheon, but he decided that his shepherd’s stick was far more effective than a truncheon, so we did not give it to him. As a matter of record, I used my truncheon once. I was chasing someone down Tottenham Court Road. I hit him three times and it had absolutely no effect. From then on, I never used it. However, on the flying squad, when we were going to violent robberies where we had intelligence that weapons were being used, we used pickaxe handles. They are far more effective.
This is a move in the right direction. I think the noble Lord described it as a practical approach. We need a common-sense approach to things such as straight truncheons and all the other issues that have been raised this afternoon. It has been a great debate as far as I am concerned, but we will make a difference. Following the approach of my dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his historical delivery in terms of what he delivered with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the time they were Ministers, we will make a difference.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, far be it from me to disagree with two former commissioners; that would be extremely inadvisable. We have heard the word “liberal” used twice in this debate, which shows that interpretations can vary.
In this House, we learn something new every day. I had no idea that we can trace pre-1945 steel in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, described. I thank him for his clear and expert introduction to his amendments, which seek to refine the definitions and provide necessary defences within the existing offensive weapons legislation.
His amendments that seek exemption for agricultural tools and historical and cultural items seem entirely sensible to us on these Benches. They would protect legitimate interests in the film, theatre and television industries, as well as non-public museums, and seek to prevent the law from becoming obsolete or unnecessarily broad. We are entirely comfortable with ensuring that while we crack down on those who equip themselves for violence, we do not punish collectors, farmers or those engaged in artistic production. To us, these are common sense amendments that safeguard the legitimate possession and use of articles that could otherwise be caught by broad definitions, and we support them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this thoughtful group of amendments relating to the controls on offensive weapons. Each of these amendments raise practical questions about the application of current laws that relate to offensive weapons and seek to ensure that legislation designed to protect the public does not inadvertently criminalise legitimate, historically important or professionally supervised activities.
Amendment 211 proposes a defence where a weapon is of genuine historical importance. The reasoning behind this amendment is eminently sensible and aligns the treatment of such items with existing defences relating to antiques and curated collections. This is a meaningful distinction between dangerous modern weapons intended for misuse and historical artifacts preserved for cultural or heritage purposes. There is an important question here on proportionality and the scope of reasonable excuse. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether existing provisions fully address the concerns raised.
Amendments 212 and 213 relate to the traditional straight police truncheon and agricultural tools. I can tell the Committee that in my 32 years as a police officer, I did not use my truncheon on anybody, but it is very useful for silencing alarms in business premises in the middle of the night when you cannot get the keyholder out of bed. Here too, we recognise the practical issues that these amendments seek to resolve. It is not a controversial belief that items with legitimate ceremonial, historical or agricultural uses should not inadvertently fall within criminal restrictions where there is no evidence of misuse. The examples provided in support of these proposals make clear that the law must operate with fairness and precision, and I hope the Government consider them with due regard.
Amendment 214 addresses a wide range of potential exemptions for visiting forces, emergency services, theatrical and film productions, museums and antiques. These are complex areas with operational realities that deserve serious thought. The amendment raises legitimate questions about how the law accommodates professional and historical circumstances without undermining public safety. I look forward to hearing the Government’s thoughts on, and response to, this amendment.
These amendments rightly probe the intersection of criminal law with the heritage and cultural sectors. These are sectors that must be protected. We cannot allow well-meaning legislation unintentionally to criminalise legitimate historical and cultural activities. We look forward to the Minister’s response and assurances that these matters will receive the careful consideration that they merit.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to ask for guidance from the Dispatch Box. When I was doing my national service in the Royal Navy in March 1957—I can date it precisely—I became a midshipman. With that ranking, I was awarded a midshipman’s dirk, which I still hold today. I cannot find that dirk falling under any of the exceptions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. Do I therefore have to table a special amendment to make it lawful for me to continue to hold my midshipman’s dirk?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Before the Minister replies, I will briefly respond to the very kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. To continue the love-in, I say that he was not only an excellent commissioner but a superb chief constable. He was a hands-on bobby as chief constable.
One night, he decided to go out in a squad car in plain clothes. He was sitting in the back, and a call came in for the officers about an incident around the corner. The officers said, “You just sit there, sir, we’ll go and have a look at it”. No sooner had the officers disappeared than the back door of the car was wrenched open, and a Geordie stuck his head in and said, “It’s okay, mate, you can scarper now—the rozzers have gone”. The noble Lord did not scarper.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Maybe this should be called the “afternoon of the long knives”.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for explaining the intention behind them.
We can see the merit in Amendments 211, 212 and 214, but making changes like this would first require thorough consultation with the police and officers. Obviously, we are very privileged to have the testimony and experience of—I am not sure whether “brace” is the right collective noun for two former commissioners—the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, remarked on how you learn something new every day: indeed, I had no idea that truncheons have so many uses or non-uses. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, opposite for explaining the ingenious uses that he put his truncheon to from time to time.
While I am referring to comments from noble Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Hacking that his issue depends on the question, “How long is your dirk?” I am not sure whether that is something I would want to say at any point in time, let alone at the Dispatch Box, but there we are.
More seriously, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the rest of the Committee that the Government will consider further the issues raised in the discussion that we have had on this group of amendments. In doing so, we will ensure that any changes to the existing defences and exemptions are made after thorough consideration of the impacts. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they all deserve serious thought and thorough consultation. Although I am not suggesting for a minute that anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, suggested otherwise, we must place the safety of the public in a paramount position. As such, I cannot undertake to bring forward any proposals in time for later stages of the Bill. However, I stress that, in any event, it would be possible to give effect to the sort of proposals that the amendments intend through existing regulation-making powers. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, therefore, would need to be debated in and approved by both the House of Lords and the other place.
Amendment 213, on items used for agriculture, gardening or similar purposes, was tabled by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and discussed by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goschen. We believe the legislation is clear that it targets curved swords, and, if that is contested, it is ultimately for the courts to decide. We will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that police officers have access to appropriate guidance. I am sympathetic to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and other noble Lords, and the proposed amendments require further consideration and consultation.
Regarding Amendment 214—indeed, all the amendments—I stress that it is at the discretion of the police, the CPS and ultimately the courts to decide to take action against those holding weapons or items on the Schedule’s list for legitimate historical reasons, or indeed those using them for legitimate cultural sets of reasons. It is at the discretion of the police and the courts in taking a case forward. But I equally stress that we have existing powers to change the relevant law through secondary legislation. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank the Minister for both the tone and the content of his response. I agree with him entirely that the main purpose is to keep people safe, and I would never want to do anything to compromise that in any way. One reason for the amendments is that sometimes, the discretion of the police and the prosecution services that he urged has not always been exercised in a way that businesses and collectors have felt is appropriate. This has probably left them to manage that risk themselves. They are not trying to break the law, but they sometimes feel they are at risk of doing so. With all that said, I am reassured by the fact that the Government may be able to consider secondary legislation appropriate. That may be the best way to deal with this. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Brady of Altrincham
“Definition of firearms(1) Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), omit paragraph (d).(3) In subsection (4), in the definition of “shot gun”, omit “and any accessory to a shot gun designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the gun”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deregulates sound moderators, muzzle breaks and flash hiders, as recommended by the Government in ‘Firearms licensing: proposal to remove sound moderators from firearms licensing controls - government response’, published June 2025. This change will help to alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments without any increase in risk or danger to the public.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to move my Amendment 214A. I declare an interest as honorary president of the British Shooting Sports Council. Amendment 214A would amend the Firearms Act 1968 to reduce the administrative burden on the police, and it would do so with no risk whatever to public safety. It would remove the current requirement to apply to the police for a specific variation on a firearms certificate in order to purchase a sound moderator, a muzzle brake or a flash hider.
I hope to be brief because I believe this amendment to be so utterly uncontroversial. Indeed, I stand here seeking to be of assistance to Ministers because, in June, this Government published Firearms Licensing: Proposal to Remove Sound Moderators from Firearms Licensing Controls—Government Response, in which they recommended exactly the course of action set out in Amendment 214A. They have since indicated their intention to implement the recommendation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
This amendment is in scope for this Bill, it would help to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on police forces, and the Government want to do it. So I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will commit to incorporating this measure at a later point in our deliberations on this Bill. It is clearly a benefit in reducing the drain on police resources. It is a benefit to those who engage in shooting sports and to the industry. As the Government themselves have accepted, it poses no threat whatever to public safety, simply removing what, in the instance of a sound moderator, is essentially an inert tube from a requirement to be licensed as though it were a firearm. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Brady’s amendment for exactly the three or four reasons he articulated. First, it is consistent with the Government’s response in June this year. Secondly, silencers themselves do not constitute a public risk. Thirdly, we are advised that this is a Bill that could permit the amendment. Fourthly, the licensing requirement imposes administrative burdens that we could do well without. These are all very good reasons for accepting the amendment. I declare an interest: I possess a silencer.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too will be brief. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Brady. It is a common-sense amendment that is very much in line with the Bill in reducing police bureaucracy without doing anything to harm public safety. The Government have already consulted on this. They have made their views clear—I am pleased to be on their side on an issue—and I hope that the Bill gives the opportunity not to stall any longer or to wait for more parliamentary time, but to go ahead. If we can get this through in a short time, it shows that, overall, there is broad support for this measure. I hope that the Government will accept it and move on.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the education of townies such as myself continues. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for his Amendments 214A and 438, which aim to deregulate sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders. It had not occurred to me that they would be caught by the legislation, so this measure, explicitly designed to alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments without increasing risk or danger to the public, seems eminently sensible. Police resources are already stretched, and we are demanding an increased focus on neighbourhood visibility—we have talked about this during the passage of the Bill—so we support sensible deregulation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy without compromising public safety. We support these amendments.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a group of relatively straightforward and common-sense amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Brady of Altrincham. It tends to carry out the Government’s own consultation results in a careful and measured way.
Amendment 214A, moved by my noble friend Lord Brady, is a simple procedural measure that implements the Government’s own recommendations. As my noble friend set out, this amendment would not impact, let alone endanger, the public. Sound moderators are inert objects that contain no moving parts. They do not enhance the ability of a firearm, nor is there significant evidence of them being used in crime. The Government have themselves concluded that removing regulation of them will not pose any risk to public safety. I understand the original logic of including them in many firearms regulations, but, in practice, it means that police firearms officers must now obtain a certificate. It is an administrative burden that is not necessary.
Amendment 438 acts much in the same vein. It would require a review of the administrative burdens that noise and flash accessories place upon the police. The Government’s own previous consultation on the latter demonstrated that there is scope here for reform; to expand that to cover other accessories seems a very logical step.
We should aim to remove bureaucratic and administrative hurdles wherever they appear. This is particularly the case for the police, as our forces are under strain. This measure is evidently a small reform among many that should be made and is based on the right principle.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brady of Altrincham, for setting out the case for his Amendments 214A and 438. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who attached their names to Amendment 214A. As the noble Lord, Lord Brady, has explained, the aim is to deregulate the devices known as sound moderators, muzzle brakes and flash hiders.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I too must out myself as a townie. As with the previous group, it has been a bit of an education finding out about these items and their uses. They are currently subject to control as they are included in the statutory definition of a firearm set out in Section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968. This means that firearms licence holders with a legitimate need for these items are required to apply to the police to include them on their existing firearms licence, and this is obviously at a cost to both the police and the licence holder.
As many noble Lords have noted—indeed, every noble Lord who spoke—removing these items from the legal definition of a firearm would alleviate the administrative burden on police firearms licensing departments. Because these are entirely inert objects containing no moving parts, they do not of themselves create a risk to public safety, as the noble Lord, Lord Brady, and others have said. The Government have already set out our intention to remove these items from the legal definition of a firearm, and I am therefore sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments.
However, I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give a commitment at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to bring forward the necessary legislative changes to the Firearms Act in this Bill. If he would agree to withdraw his amendment, I will undertake to update the noble Lord ahead of Report. I will say no more.
Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive response and grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I feel almost ashamed to be moving an amendment that is so widely supported and has no opposition on either side of the House. I reassure the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I am a bit of a townie as well, but there is hope for all of us—we can learn. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to a further conversation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Blencathra
“Knives on educational premisesIn section 139A(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (offence of having article with blade or point (or offensive weapon) on educational premises), omit paragraphs (b) to (d).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the only justification for anyone to have a knife at school would be for “use at work” and that would apply to teachers only. It would remove any other defence for having a knife on educational premises.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to my other amendments in this group. Amendment 214B is rather small; the others propose three large new clauses which I hope to sell to the Government.
On Amendment 214B, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence to have an offensive weapon on any school premises, with the exception that
“it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had the article or weapon in question with him … for use at work … for educational purposes … for religious reasons, or … as part of any national costume”.
My amendment suggests deleting
“for educational purposes … for religious reasons, or … as part of any national costume”.
I see no justification whatever to permit schoolchildren to have knives. What is their educational purpose? Perhaps it is to learn that they have sharp edges.
The religious exemption, I understand, is for the Sikh men and women who are under a religious obligation to wear a knife called a kirpan when they are old enough to understand its meaning. There is no specific age for that, and I stress that it is a religious artefact and is not worn as a weapon. I also stress that Sikhs using the kirpan as a weapon are extremely rare and the only documented case that I can find was of a man drawing it in self-defence when he was attacked, and he was rightly exonerated for it.
Nevertheless, we are awash with knife crime in schools. I think it sends completely the wrong signal that some young men and girls can attend school carrying or wearing a knife. It gives all the ignorant others a chance to say, “If they can carry one, why can’t I?” I stress again that Sikhs do not have a track record of using their kirpans as offensive weapons. I also say that, in my view, no religious belief can trump public safety, no matter what the religion.
Similarly, the exception for national costume must also go, as far as schoolchildren are concerned. In full dress uniform, which I wore very exceptionally, I had a sword on my left side and a dirk on my right—one drew them with contrary arms, so you were fully armed on both sides. We of course also had a sgian-dubh down our hose—our sock, for English speakers. In a civilian kilt, I would also have that black knife—the translation of sgian-dubh—down my right hose. It is a black knife not because of the colour but because it was sneaky and underhanded and you could stab your opponent with a hidden weapon he did not know about—although every single person in Scotland knew you were carrying a secret, hidden weapon down your sock. I am not sure how my dirk differed from the dirk of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I am not sure what purpose his was supposed to be put to as a midshipman: we had better not go there. But I say that there is no justification whatever for permitting any schoolchildren to wear a sgian-dubh or any other knife as part of a national costume. Those exemptions should be rescinded.
Turning now to my principal amendments in this group, and they are related, I think the new clauses I have suggested here are terribly important. Amendment 214 lists some of the categories of offensive weapons that are so dangerous and so evil that they should have separate mention from all other offensive weapons in legislation. Amendment 214D suggests measures to stop their manufacture or importation, with some tough penalties for breaches, and the new clause proposed in Amendment 215 would create tough penalties for possession, carrying and use. The first thing the Minister and other noble Lords will say, quite rightly, is that we do not need a special category for these weapons, since they are all caught already in various laws on offensive weapons. That is entirely correct, but I shall argue that we now have such an epidemic of the use of these appalling weapons, especially machetes, that we need exemplary action to crack down on them.
The first known machete attack in this country was the barbaric murder of PC Blakelock in Broadwater Farm in 1985, where reports say that he was on the ground, curled up in a ball, screaming in agony as a machete and knife-wielding mob hacked him to death with 43 vicious wounds. No one has ever been convicted of that crime. The next big machete attack was in Wolverhampton in 1996, but it is in the last 10 years that machete attacks have really taken off. On Monday, two days ago, an 18 year-old was sentenced to 24 years for the machete murder of a man in Leeds. Also last Monday, a man was sentenced in Croydon for the murder of a 16 year-old with a machete. In Woolwich in October, two teenagers were sentenced for the machete murder of another 15 year-old kid. In September, two youths were sentenced to life imprisonment for the machete murder of a 14 year-old on a London bus. In Lincolnshire, two men were sentenced for the manslaughter with a machete of another man. In October, we all saw videos of a group of men fighting in the street with machetes, and two weeks ago similar videos were shown of a gang outside a Starbucks in east London, fighting with machetes. This did not look like the United Kingdom but downtown Kinshasa, where I see they are almost re-enacting another Rwanda massacre.
I say this carefully. Who is doing nearly all the machete killings? Why, black youths. Who are nearly all the victims who are dying? Again, black youths. This is not the time or the place to go into it, but we seem to have imported an African attitude to the use of machetes, either through some of the people coming into this country or British-born youths adopting a machete culture. Leaving aside the individual historic cases I mentioned, the generality is that police figures recently released from police forces in England and Wales following an FoI show that machetes are used in almost 700 cases every month. That is a machete attack almost every hour on average, but the true total is even higher, as the nation’s largest force, the Metropolitan Police, failed to provide statistics, saying it would take too long for staff to compile them. I am certain that the two noble Lords the former commissioners who are with us here today would have found the time to compile those statistics, especially if I had asked for them. Six other police forces failed to respond. A survey of police forces found that machetes were involved in 1,335 crime incidents in two months at the end of last year.
I have focused on heavily on machetes, since they are the new preferred weapon of choice for gangs and individuals wanting to terrorise and kill those they see as their opponents. Why take a seven-inch knife or a nine-inch carving knife from the kitchen drawer when you can get a 21-inch machete and have a much more offensive weapon? I used to have a machete myself, a handle and a blade about 21 inches long, which I would sharpen to an absolute razor’s edge. I used it for clearing brambles and brush in an overgrown orchard I had. It was a superb implement which could slash through anything. The mind boggles to think of that used on any human being.
The other particularly dangerous weapons I list in this new clause are zombie knives, obviously, and cleavers. Why cleavers? Do we have butchers on the rampage? Well, no, but the scum who murdered drummer Lee Rigby outside Woolwich Barracks used a standard meat cleaver. That is why I say in proposed new subsection (3) that the Secretary of State must be able to add new particularly dangerous weapons if the fad suddenly changes. For example, in rural farming supply shops, noble Lords will find an implement called a bill-hook. It is rather like a shorter version of a machete, but with a curved, pointed end. It is used for hedge laying, but it is not beyond the wit of thugs to buy these if we clamp down so much on machetes or other things that they cannot get them. There is no recorded incidence of a cutlass being used, but they are very similar to machetes and the bad guys will switch to them if we clamp down on everything else.
Finally, in this proposed new clause, I suggest that the Secretary of State be given a rather unusual power—which I do not think we do anywhere else in regulations—to put pictures or photos in the regulations. Look how many words it takes to define a zombie knife. Let us make it simpler by publishing representations of them as well.
I do not need to spend long on Amendment 214D, which provides for the offence of selling, manufacturing and importing of these particularly dangerous weapons. I have already made the case why they are evil, and I suggest that anyone convicted of an offence under this new clause should get up to 10 years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. I am not tying the judges’ hands; I can assure the Minister of total discretion to sentence up to 10 years. It must also apply to the directors and officers of a company, who should not be allowed to hide behind limited company status.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend was gracious enough to make a reference to me, in the sense that he suggested that I have some concerns about his drafting. Indeed, I do. I shall take the liberty of expressing them, and I shall also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about his dirk, which I will come to in a moment.
Machetes are my particular concern, but so, too, are cleavers, defined in this amendment. We need to understand that both have legitimate purposes. The fact is clearly recognised in the exemptions contained in proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 214E, where the fact that they have legitimate purposes is fully recognised.
I have a number of machetes. I have used them all my life and I still do. They are essential for clearing brambles and thorns when you cannot get at them with a strimmer or another mechanical instrument. I have not actually got a cleaver, but I know that people interested in cooking—not me—use them. Butchers certainly use them, as do gamekeepers and gillies when preparing carcasses from animals shot on the estate. Let us face it: these things have legitimate use. It is in that context that we must come to the detail with which we have been provided.
Proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 214D states that any person marketing or selling, et cetera, any of these instruments is committing an offence. That means that any hardware store in my former constituency which happened to be selling a machete would be committing an absolute offence. That is a very bizarre proposition. It means that any decent catering shop that sells cleavers is committing an absolute offence.
In proposed new subsection (2) these are absolute offences—no mens rea whatever. Then in proposed new subsection (3), anybody guilty of any of those offences faces imprisonment for up to 10 years. Proposed new subsection (4), the most bizarre of all, states that the police or the National Crime Agency can come into a private house to see whether there are any machetes or cleavers in it. That is all very bizarre stuff.
We then come to an even more interesting set of propositions in Amendment 214E.
“Any person over the age of 18”,
that is me,
“in possession of … a machete … in a public place is guilty of an offence”.
I have brambles and thorns in the adjoining fields to which I have to get access to cut—armed with my machete—by going along the footpath, which happens to be a public way, or by crossing the street, which happens to be a public way. In doing so I would be committing an absolute offence. That, I regret to say, is absurd.
I notice in proposed new subsection (3) that the police can come into my house to find these offensive weapons which I have had all my life. That is absurd. Proposed new subsection (4) states:
“It is assumed that the possession or carrying of”,
these things,
“is for the purposes of unlawful violence”.
When I am going along the footpath or crossing the street to cut down some brambles or thorns, it is to be presumed that I am intending some act of unlawful violence. Is that really sensible?
Proposed new subsection (5) on zombie knives is acceptable. However, proposed new subsection (6) deals with the “Hacking” point, if I may so call it. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, possesses a dirk. I do not know how long the dirk is, but I can imagine that it is of a length to make it a sword. If this amendment is accepted by your Lordships, should the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go for a stroll on Whitehall carrying his dirk, he will be committing an absolute offence, and it will be assumed that he is intending some violence to third parties. Let us assume it is a sword. What happens if he stores it at home? Is it displayed for historical purposes? I rather doubt that; I do not suppose it is hanging on the wall to be shown to the public. Is it worn by uniformed personnel, as part of their uniform? Well, I am looking forward to seeing the noble Lord in his uniform, but I fancy that the answer to that is also no.
The truth is in a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in an earlier debate. If you go to any country house like mine, my friends’ or my neighbours’, they are stuffed full of these things, like swords from previous campaigns, that their great-great-grandfather carried at Waterloo, or that their great-grandfather carried at the Boer war, or whatever. These are not displayed for historical purposes; they are family possessions, and it is an absurdity to say that the police can come into my house and take these things. Oh no, no, no—this will not do at all.
The truth is that if somebody wishes to walk down Whitehall waving a machete, I am not surprised that the police get upset, but if they come to Lincolnshire—Kettlethorpe in particular—and find me crossing the street to cut down brambles and thorns with a machete I have owned for 50 years, I shall be passing annoyed. My noble friend’s purpose may be splendid, but his drafting is defective.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, there have been two things which were splendid. First of all were the intentions behind the proposals of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and secondly, the content and tone of the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is essentially saying that there needs to be greater attention paid by the public authorities—I include legislators as a public authority for this purpose—to the increase in the incidence of machete and cleaver crime, and that we need to make sure there is less of it. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, there is some deficiency here. I think he was making what we used to call a pleading point, but let us leave it there.
Lord Garnier (Con)
There we are. Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, I suggest that the answer to this is a sentencing question. My noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out that, in some of the particularly nasty cases he referred to, very lengthy sentences were awarded for the people who committed these crimes with these particular weapons. As I said at Second Reading, I have a horror of legislating to create new offences which are already offences. It is already an offence to do something criminal with one of these weapons, no matter what it is called. Although I entirely understand my noble friend’s motives, the better way is to consider whether the sentencers have sufficient powers to deal very seriously with these very serious crimes. By the sound of it, they already do, but the Government may want to look to see whether the criminal courts should be given greater powers of sentencing when dealing with crimes committed with these particular weapons.
I come back to my points. I understand my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s motives; I equally understand my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s enthusiasm for the points he has made. But, essentially, we are here dealing with a matter of sensible sentencing for particularly vicious crimes. If we concentrated on that, we would not clutter up the already over-lengthy legislation with yet more provisions.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned my name, perhaps I should just say that his recollection of what happened in Glasgow is indeed correct. Lord Carmont was dealing with convicted criminals. These were people who had been convicted of crimes, from assaults to severe injury, and were using a perfectly familiar weapon: an open razor, which people commonly used. The example that the noble Lord gave makes exactly the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made: it was dealt with by sentencing, not by legislation.
In those days, there was no Sentencing Council, and a judge was free, more or less, to choose his own sentence. Lord Carmont chose very severe sentences, which were quite out of the usual range. The shock that caused had a real effect in reducing that particular crime. It was not the end of knife crime, I am afraid, although that was suppressed later by other measures, but it was a very effective use of a sentencing power in the days when judges were not constrained by a Sentencing Council, other rules and so on. They were able to select a really severe sentence when it suited the situation. The noble Lord’s recollection is perfectly correct, but I think it makes the point that it is better to deal with this by sentencing.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I associate myself with all the sentiments that have been shared this afternoon on this matter. I think we all know what we want to try and stop with the Bill: zombie knives. There is no excuse or legitimate use at all for a zombie knife. But it is incredibly difficult to define, and legislation has attempted to do so. The points raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham are absolutely right: we do not want to criminalise the use of everyday items or the ownership of swords. They may not be for historical purposes, but they may be of sentimental value, family heirlooms or collector’s items and may have any number of associated uses. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has put his finger on an absolute scourge which we, as parliamentarians and in co-operation with the police, really have to deal with using every tool that we have. But I also share the concern that there will be many unintended consequences if my noble friend’s amendments, as currently drafted, were included in the Bill.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak about Amendment 214B on knives in schools. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that we on these Benches take a different view. We strongly believe that criminalising children is just not the way forward. Last year, an authoritative joint police and Ofsted report warned that serious youth violence has spread its tentacles further than many adults realise and that 11 year-olds now carry knives for protection, so there is no doubt that there is a major problem. However, the same report does not call for more punitive sanctions to deter young people from offending. Instead, it recommends a preventative, public health approach, focused on early intervention, safeguarding and partnership working. It warned that, without better co-ordination and sustained investment in prevention, efforts to tackle youth violence will fall short and the cycle of harm will continue. These warnings must be heeded.
Yet, budget pressures mean police forces are cutting safer school programmes. The Met, for example, is moving 371 officers out of schools due to funding shortfalls. Prevention has to be taken seriously and resourced properly. Public health funding per capita has fallen by 28% since 2015. That results in reactive rather than preventative policing, and nowhere is this more important than with children and knife crime.
I agree that there is no justification for a child to bring a knife into school, but we cannot support the approach of Amendment 214B. Instead, we should concentrate on the success of interventions such as Operation Divan, which involves a single, voluntary face-to-face meeting between a young person at risk and a police officer or a youth justice worker. This prioritises prevention, education and safeguarding. Early results show a 60% reduction in knife and weapon offences at a cost of only £30 to £65 per person.
I turn briefly to the noble Lord’s remaining amendments and the proposal for a special category of particularly dangerous weapons. As the noble Lord recognises, these weapons are already prohibited. In our view, creating another category risks unnecessary overlap without adding any real benefit.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of interesting amendments regarding knife crime. As we have already heard, my noble friend comes to this debate with the experience of some time in the Home Office—a real experience at the sharp end. Although the rates of knife crime have fallen a little over recent years, any victim of a crime, particularly one caused by knives, is a victim too many. Just recently, we heard of the terrible incident on fireworks night a year or so ago and the trial, which finished in the Old Bailey earlier this autumn; 16 year-olds were involved, and one of them died, and it all happened very quickly. So, knives are a real problem. The Government pledged in their manifesto to halve knife crime by 2030. If they wish to make good on that premise, it is imperative that they really do something to reduce it.
My noble friend’s amendments are a welcome practical measure in that direction but are subject to a number of reservations. I begin with schools. Amendment 214B introduces an important clarification to the law in respect of defences for carrying a knife in school premises. It makes plain that the only justification for someone having a knife at school can be in relation to educational services. It is also right that, in turn, this justification should apply only to teachers or those holding a position of authority. There is no plausible reason why a student should come on to the school premises carrying a knife. We welcome the amendment as an important step to ensure that both pupils and teachers are safe from knives at school, and we hope that the Government look at this and consider the amendment seriously.
We also thank my noble friend for his Amendments 214C to 214E. As we have heard, these seek to create a special category of particularly dangerous weapons: machetes, zombie knives, cleavers, swords and cutlasses. The merit is in identifying particular weapons by name. That will strike a chord with the public and with those who might otherwise carry them. They will know that, if they carry one of these weapons, just having it in their possession risks a very heavy prison sentence. Just having existing powers of sentencing does not, it seems, carry that resonance with those who most need to hear it, so we have got to do something.
Given the substantial increase in the use of machetes in recent years—we heard from my noble friend about the increase in their use in particular—something has to be done which identifies them, singles them out and curbs their circulation and use. In 2024, there were 18 machete homicides, an increase from 14 in 2023. Amendments 214D and 214E similarly ensure that manufacturing, selling, ownership and possession of these dangerous weapons will be regarded as a specific new offence.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham was right to point out that the drafting causes problems, and there are people, in the countryside in particular, who may have a legitimate use for machetes. But we are not in the jungle of Belize; we are in the United Kingdom. Sickles and scythes can be used, of course, but if there is going to be a use for something such as a machete, there should be specific clarity to make sure that we do not allow it to be put forward as a specious defence.
To call these amendments bizarre would, in my submission, go too far. If we take this matter seriously, as we all should, we will know full well that this really is an important mischief which has to be addressed, named and called out. My noble friend has raised an important issue, and the Government, if they are serious about cutting knife crime—and not just knife crime but the use of these appalling tools and weapons—must work to bridge the drafting gap so that the sorts of things which we have seen and heard about in the last few years are heavily reduced and people can walk and live in safety, particularly in our big cities.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that despite preparing for the debate on these amendments, I did not expect to venture into Glasgow razor crime in the 1950s, the use of Waterloo swords or, indeed, the brambles of Lincolnshire, but this has been an enjoyable debate on a very serious subject and I welcome the contributions from across the Committee today.
Amendment 214B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asks whether existing defences to possession of a bladed article—that is, a knife—should be removed in educational establishments. I am of the view that the defences listed under Section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 are appropriate and in line with similar defences that already exist for the offence of possession of a bladed article in a public place.
The defence for educational purposes, for example, which Amendment 214B seeks to remove, would cover instances where both the teacher and the student may need to use a knife in the classroom or for educational purposes on the premises, such as in craftmanship or cookery lessons, or others. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made common cause with the view that there is a need for certain uses of knives in schools under strictly controlled circumstances.
The issue of prevention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, also mentioned, is important, and I endorse the idea that we need to look at how we prevent the use of knives. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in Amendment 214B his withdrawal of those definitions would cause some difficulties in educational matters.
The religious reasons defence takes into account the need sometimes to carry a knife for religious reasons. The noble Lord and others have mentioned the position of individuals of the Sikh faith. The Government are not aware of any cases where this or any other existing defence has been abused in educational establishments by members of that faith.
Again, it is appropriate to put on record that educational establishments can introduce their own rules and regulations, and, of course, if someone brings a knife into an educational establishment or uses a knife already in the establishment to cause harm, even if they have a defence such as for work purposes, they will have a committed a serious criminal offence under existing legislation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Indeed. On reflection, I think I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that his dirk is a dagger and therefore does not fall within the remit of the legislation proposed—I think that information was considered by my noble friend Lord Katz but it was not able to be deployed at the time. However, we can return to that at some point.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord is relieved about that.
The serious point here is that getting the defences and exemptions under which weapons may be legal to own, import or sell under certain limited circumstances right also requires consultation—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, acknowledged that. In the absence of such consultation, I suggest that the Bill is not the right place to legislate on a specific category of knives and weapons, and we risk not taking account of some important matters if we have not consulted first.
In any event, it would be possible to give effect to these proposals for further restrictions through existing regulation-making powers provided for since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Any such regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so, again, they would be subject to debate in and approval by both Houses of Parliament.
We have debated the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 which introduce new measures to provide the police with the power to require social media marketplaces and search services to take down online illegal content. I understand the honest, genuine motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in tabling these amendments, but just a casual listen to the debate today shows that there are a number of issues that we need to consider, and I believe that the existing powers that we have, the actions that we have taken and the measures under the Bill will be sufficient. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, some mildly in support of my amendments and others liking the concept but pointing out the serious drafting flaws in them. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hailsham; he is right that the drafting is flawed. Any future amendments I make would need to include “legitimate and lawful use”. He pointed out that he would need to go on to the high street or to another public place to use his machete. I would have to do the same myself, with a buddleia overgrowing the road. If I had a machete, I would have to go on to the pavement to use it. Instead, I have an electric trimmer, which my wife can use. There are legitimate flaws in my drafting.
I suspect that many of my noble friends from a hereditary background have houses stuffed full of dangerous, sharp weapons—from pikes to swords—as well as armour and all the other accoutrements acquired over centuries in this great and noble land of ours, where tremendous battles have been fought to secure our freedoms since 1066. Of course they are not for public display; I accept that this too is an error in my drafting. They are there because they are owned by the family, who should not be penalised for having them.
My concept is right. There is a problem here, and I hope that if we come back to some elements of this amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord Hailsham will help me in the drafting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that a dirk is not included in my definition. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier hit the nail on the head: tough sentences are required, though that may not require some of the amendments that I have suggested. I am so grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for pointing out that with the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it was tough sentences that cracked down in Scotland. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he said that there was then full judicial discretion. We did not have the Sentencing Council, which to me ties the hands of our judges—judges who should have full discretion to sentence as they see fit.
In some of those cases in the last few months which I quoted, people got a minimum term of 24 years or 30 years for an appalling murder, but hundreds of others who attacked people who did not die received much lesser sentences. Machete attacks have now become endemic. It is the weapon of choice for bad guys, for youths who want to commit crimes or terrorise their opponents in other gangs. We need unique and specialised exemplary action.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that I am not calling for children to be criminalised. I referred to three instances, and I was wrong in suggesting removing educational uses. But I can see no justification for maintaining a religious exception and a national dress exception allowing kids to bring such knives to school. The Government are wrong to stick to that.
Introducing this has been worth while. I do not mind that my noble friend Lord Hailsham called some of it “bizarre”. What is happening on the streets of London and elsewhere in England today is bizarre. If, 20 years ago, we had said that we would see these gangs fighting on the streets outside Starbucks with machetes, we would have said, “Don’t be fanciful; it’s barking mad; it’s never going to happen”. It is happening day in, day out on our streets. It is not only bizarre; it is obscene and dangerous. Therefore, we need to take special action, exemplary action, to deal with this problem. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 214B.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(c) is employed by the occupier or owner of the retail premises in delivering goods directly to a consumer from the premises.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 214F and 214G, in my name, as we move away from the regulation of weapons to retail crime and shoplifting. I will try to be brief.
In my 15 or so years as an executive at Tesco and as vice-chair of the British Retail Consortium, I spent many hours investigating and studying shoplifting and what could be done to reduce it. We used staff training, the latest waves of technology and generous business investment to combat it. I was always very worried by the wider social impact, as stolen goods were sold on to fuel drug habits and innocent shop workers were sometimes hurt in the process of trying to stop it. The truth is that these risks and their devastating effect on individuals have become much greater as society has changed and become more divided and less moral, and hence violent crime has become more of a day-to-day occurrence. As with so much else, the long Covid lockdown has made things worse, and the police have prioritised other things.
However, this Bill is full of amendments requiring the police to do more. That will put yet further pressure on the police contribution to tackling neighbourhood crimes such as shoplifting and assaults on retail workers, which frighten retail workers, especially in the smallest shops, and lead, sadly, to more shop closures on the high street. For some years I strongly supported USDAW’s campaign for a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker. As the Minister knows, I am delighted that the Bill puts that into law. It is a good day for the Minister, given his USDAW links, and for the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, smiling over there, who represented USDAW so intelligently when I was at Tesco.
However, the Bill as drafted does not quite do the trick as it does not cover retail delivery drivers, who have also been the subject of growing aggression. This is a particular problem if the driver has to ask for ID because a juvenile under 18 is taking delivery—a flashpoint, according to a recent British Retail Consortium survey—or if there is a disagreement about what is being paid for and delivered. Last week, Tesco even announced that it was piloting giving body cameras to delivery drivers. Another point of significance is that such drivers are already covered by parallel legislation in Scotland. That is not always a recommendation, but given the national character of much of retail, I hope the Minister will agree that this alignment makes sense and accept my Amendments 214 F and 214 G. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief this time. My Amendment 214FA seeks to add hospitality venues. This is an important clause which has my full support; I simply want clarification that cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars are included in the definition of retail premises.
In UK law, “retail premises” typically refers to premises where goods are sold directly to consumers for personal use. This includes shops, supermarkets and other establishments where tangible products are offered for sale. Hospitality venues such as cafes, restaurants, pubs and bars primarily provide services: the preparation and serving of food and drink for consumption on the premises. While these venues may sell some items to take away, their main business activity is the provision of hospitality services rather than retailing goods.
UK planning law differentiates between retail and hospitality venues through the use of “use classes”, which categorise buildings and their permitted activities. Class E—commercial, business and service—includes shops, restaurants, cafés, financial services and other commercial uses. While both retail shops and hospitality venues are covered under class E, they are distinct subcategories within this class. Class E(a) refers to shops selling goods, while class E(b) refers to the
“sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption is mostly undertaken on the premises”,
which covers cafés, pubs and restaurants. Therefore, while cafés and restaurants fall under the same broad planning class as retail shops, they are not regarded as retail outlets in the strict sense, but rather as hospitality or food service venues.
Legislation relating to employment, health and safety, licensing and business rates may further distinguish between retail and hospitality businesses. For example, food hygiene regulations specifically address food service establishments, while retail regulations focus on the sale of goods. Under UK law, cafés and restaurants are not generally regarded as retail outlets; they are classified as hospitality venues or food service establishments. The key distinction lies in the primary activity. Selling goods is retail whereas providing food and drink services is hospitality. From what I understand, the core hospitality operations—serving meals and drinks, and providing accommodation—are not generally covered under the definition of a retail outlet. If I am wrong and Clause 37 includes cafés, bars and restaurants, then I am content that there is no problem. However, if it does not, we have a gaping hole in the law and my amendment is essential to plug it. If I am right that those are not covered, I hope the Minister will bring forward a little amendment to ensure that those workers get the same protection as workers in retail shops.
Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this debate. In fact, some months ago, I introduced a debate on retail crime. I think it is fair to say that there was support across the House—why would there not be? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made the point that, to some extent, this was never an adversarial debate between employers and the trade union. It is a good example of where we come together for a common cause.
In historical terms, I should say that, in 2003, USDAW, which has been referred to, introduced its Freedom From Fear campaign. It sounds very dramatic, but it was born out of necessity. Too many retail workers were being verbally and physically abused. In some ways it had become normalised. It was an acknowledgement that, on too many occasions, people working in retail were abused. This campaign has run since 2003 and has resulted in this stand-alone offence being accepted.
I congratulate the Minister, not just because he had the enlightened view to become a member of USDAW, which I should acknowledge, but because of his commitment to retail workers and to understanding the implications of being verbally and physically abused. We often see the retail store as an environment that, quite rightly, encourages people to come in, and the vast majority of the public do so. In truth, however, over the years, the trend of coming into a store and believing that you can abuse somebody has become normalised. It is not condoned by employers, and certainly not by the trade unions, but the £200 threshold, to some extent, gave licence. Even some of the perpetrators would say, “Don’t worry, if it’s less than £200 there’ll be no action taken”.
Retail workers, of whom there are just under 3 million, do an exceptional job; reference was made to the pandemic. Abuse can never be a part of the job. It is a fundamental right to be able to go to work safe and come home safe. That is why I congratulate the Government and the Minister on their commitment to this matter. I could read out lots of statistics about the effects of retail crime; I will not do so. However, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the USDAW campaign, to retail crime and to its impact. Everyone has stores within their area. If you talk to shopworkers, you will see that this is very much an evidence-based campaign.
When I talk about statistics, I am not talking about thefts from a store; I am talking about the fact that behind every statistic, there is an individual. Some of those individuals who were physically abused never went back to the workplace. Having been abused two or three times, they did not have the confidence to return. That is a shame. Maybe it reflects the way society has gone, as we have referred to.
I welcome this stand-alone offence, and I do not want to detract from it. It is 22 years, at least, in the making. A lot of effort has gone in. I am proud of the fact that this Government have understood it and have done it, although I have to say to the Minister that the question of where the Act will stop has been referred to in respect of this offence. I am proud that this offence has been accepted, because it matters. I say to my noble friend the Minister that USDAW wants me to send a big thanks for the effort that has gone in to achieve this outcome.
However, I want to make a request of the Minister; I hope that he will consider it favourably. I would like to meet him to consider some of the implications of the further reach of retail offences. I would like that meeting to be with my general secretary, Joanne Thomas, and maybe people from the Home Office. I make that request on a without prejudice basis, but it would give me the opportunity to express some further considerations and concerns that have been raised in this House.
I will leave it at that but express my support for the work that has been done on this Bill. Hopefully, when this Bill takes effect with the stand-alone offence, USDAW members will feel now that it has been accepted.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord. This is slightly extraneous to the amendment but, wearing his USDAW hat, will he please campaign against automatic tills, which we helpless disabled people find absolutely appalling? Will he commend shops such as Booths in the north of England, which has absolutely refused to have automatic tills and insist on having tellers at every one? It is a wonderful way to shop.
Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)
We can have a conversation about that at some stage. I thank the noble Lord.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will come back to the topic of this group. I too have an amendment in this group, Amendment 351. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, and indeed my noble friends. I endorse a lot of what they have said and argued.
As I said at Second Reading, I have huge sympathy for those in public-facing jobs who have been subject to abuse and violent threats at work. Aside from such threats being unacceptable, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, understand the fear that they generate. Anyone at work on the receiving end of such a threat should at least be confident that the police will respond swiftly when they are in danger, or when an actual crime starts to be committed.
My instincts have always been to support Clauses 37 and 38, as I said at Second Reading. However, I find myself somewhat conflicted. Several noble Lords argued at Second Reading that existing provisions on assault are an adequate protection in law and that a special law for assault against retail workers was not needed. I thought these arguments were somewhat convincing. Having said that, to be absolutely clear, I have no desire to remove Clauses 37 or 38 from the Bill. I will continue before everybody thinks that I am going to do something radical, which will cause all sorts of upset.
The amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Blencathra to extend the protection to delivery drivers and some hospitality workers in some establishments highlight that, having started down the path of singling out just the retail sector, it is difficult to draw a clear boundary line. The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, has already said that he now wants to push it yet further.
As we know, the aggravated crime of assault against public-facing workers, which we added to the crime and courts Bill, included all industries and sectors. That was not focused only on the retail industry. I worry that the aggravated offence of assault, which covers everybody in public-facing work, together with this new offence of assault on retail workers, will create a somewhat confusing picture for people who are employed in public-facing roles but are not in the retail sector. I think here of people working in public transport, or in banks or post offices; there are all sorts of different categories.
This potentially confusing picture brings me back to my underlying concerns. First, we cannot afford to lose good people who are doing a good job, whether that is in shops, on public transport, or in banks or post offices, as I said. We think of the recent horrific incident on LNER the other Saturday and the railway worker who was heroic in intervening. We are very conscious now that a lot of people are in places of work where they are subject to real threats and abuse.
So I ask the Minister: what work have he and the department done to satisfy himself that any perception of two-tier protection for people in different public-facing roles will not have a detrimental effect on employees who may fear they are no longer as covered as some other people in other public-facing roles? If there has been any work on that, that would be helpful to know and understand.
Secondly, and in my view just as importantly, if not more so, noble Lords who were in the Chamber at Second Reading may have heard me argue then that one of the things that I feel are needed is for workers who are in charge of public spaces or places, whether they be commercial or public sector spaces, to be encouraged to be more active in upholding common standards of conduct that we should all have a right to expect of each other in public, the breakdown of which is adding to people’s despair. The sorts of things I am talking about here are litter dropping, feet on seats, watching videos or listening to music on phones without headphones, and queue jumping. That is the kind of activity that comes before we get to actual offences that sometimes are happening now, such as fare dodging, smoking or drinking alcohol on public transport where they are not meant to be, or even defecating in public. We need workers to have delegated authority, from their employer or their union, and from all of us in leadership positions, and have confidence that, along with them, we will do the same in upholding these important standards in public places. We need a collective effort to tackle what I see as a broken windows type of activity. If we keep allowing this kind of activity to be ignored, we are allowing the risk of escalated bad behaviour to continue, which could then lead to actual serious crimes.
While the various trade bodies are coming at this from their perspectives with a desire to protect their staff, and rightly so, we need to look at this through a much wider lens and see the bigger picture. As a consequence of that, it might be that the price we need to pay is expanding what some believe is an unnecessary new crime in the Bill, to include other workers and to match the terms of the aggravated offence in the Crime and Courts Bill.
As I say, this was a probing amendment—this is not me trying to introduce a new law—but I would like it if the Minister agreed to meet me, perhaps with my noble friend Lord Davies, to talk about this some more. I genuinely think there are potential unintended consequences to this that we need at least to be alive to. We should consider what more is needed to ensure that everyone who is in a public-facing role feels sufficiently protected, but also, if we are to tackle the behaviour that is leading some to feel that they can do things with impunity, and that then gives them the courage and confidence to go on to commit more serious offences, we need to be thinking about this in a very different and more innovative way.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made. First, we welcome the new protections introduced by Clauses 37 and 38. As legislators, we cannot stand by while so many people turn up to work every day expecting to face potentially terrifying abuse, threats and physical violence. This was brought home to me recently when a friend of mine went into our local Boots the chemist earlier this week in order to buy some headache tablets, only to find that practically every shelf in the shop was completely empty. When she spoke to the staff, they said, “Oh, it happens on a daily basis”, and they are so terrified that they just stand by and do nothing, because they are petrified that if they do anything or say anything they could be knifed. That is not in an area that is known for, to use the noble Baroness’s expression, “baddies”. It is in an area of London that is very safe. So that is really worrying.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for bringing forward Amendments 214F and 214G, which address a gap in the protections afforded to retail workers under Clause 37. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
The amendments seek to ensure that delivery drivers who are employed as part of the retail and distribution process are fully included in the scope of the proposed offences against retail workers, and that delivery vehicles themselves are recognised as an extension of the retail premises. We understand and support the underlying principle behind these proposals. Delivery drivers in many cases are the face and point of contact between businesses and consumers and they often work alone, sometimes at unsociable hours and in circumstances where they may be exposed to heightened vulnerability and increasing levels of aggression and abuse.
The safety of delivery drivers should not depend on whether they are standing behind a shop counter or stepping out of a branded van. The rise of home delivery as a core component of modern retail means that this work is an integral part of the sector, and it is only right that the law reflects that reality. It is regrettable to read that certain major supermarkets have rolled out bodycams for their delivery drivers in an effort to protect them. I therefore hope the Government will consider carefully how these protections might sensibly be extended to those whose job it is to ensure that goods reach the customer.
Turning to Amendment 351 in the name of my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, I fully understand the principle and intent behind this amendment. It raises significant questions about whether the current scope of legal protection is sufficiently broad. The question of whether other public-facing workers, such as in transport, hospitality or civic buildings, face similar risks is one worth raising and discussing. Many of those workers play a crucial role in maintaining order, ensuring safety and supporting essential public functions in spaces accessible to the public.
I similarly thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his Amendment 214FA. This would include premises used by the hospitality industry for the supply of food or drink as part of the definition of retail premises for the purposes of this offence. This is also an important question to pose to the Government, and I hope they consider it with care.
The issues raised by this group of amendments deserve serious consideration. They invite the Government to reflect on whether extra provisions are needed to protect certain public-facing roles and, if so, which roles specifically need to be highlighted. The question that needs to be answered in response to all the amendments in this group is why only retail workers should be afforded a special criminal offence. Does the A&E receptionist not face the threat of violence and intimidation too? What about the bar staff at a nightclub? A wide range of people are at higher risk of assault during the course of their work. If we are to create a specific offence of assaulting a retail worker, it would make sense to expand this. I hope that the Government will give this careful thought and return the clarity in how they intend to address the concerns expressed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their amendments. I should note—if not declare an interest—that I have been a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for 46 years now. That is a long time. I think it is worth noting that I have an interest in this matter. Indeed, I spent many years trying to raise this very issue when a Member of Parliament and outside Parliament before coming to this House.
I should also say at the outset that I am meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to discuss this matter, and am very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, as well. I had a request from my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton to meet him and the USDAW general secretary, Joanne Thomas. I am also happy to do that between now and Report; it may not be immediately.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I would be very happy to join a group meeting rather than the Minister having to have several meetings with each of us. If there were to be third parties involved in a meeting, such as USDAW, I wonder whether he would also consider including the Institute of Customer Service. It is in a unique position—and I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Customer Service—as it looks at this across the board, and the letter it organised included signatories from a range of different industries.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will reflect on that. It is a helpful suggestion, if colleagues are happy to have a joint meeting. I would also like to involve the Policing Minister, who has an interest in this matter as a whole.
I want to place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton. They have campaigned very strongly as representatives of the supermarkets, in this case Tesco, and the workforce. My noble friend has campaigned for many years on this issue. Freedom from Fear is a campaign that Paddy Lillis, the previous general secretary, Joanne Thomas, the current general secretary, and my noble friend Lord Hannett of Everton, the general secretary before Paddy Lillis, worked on for a long time. It has been brought to them by members of the union as an important issue. It is worth putting that on record, and we can examine how we organise the discussion and consultation in due course.
Assault on anyone, including delivery drivers and transport staff, is wholly unacceptable. Everyone should be protected from assault. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, common assault has a maximum sentence of six months in prison and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers serious violence, grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm.
I come back to the reason why I have campaigned on this issue for many years. Retail workers have been at the forefront of upholding much of the legislation. They uphold legislation on solvent abuse sales, tobacco sales, knife sales, drink sales and a range of other issues. They are also very much the first port of call on shop theft and the issues that the noble Baroness mentioned. USDAW figures show that 10% of staff have reported a physical attack on them in the last year alone; that seems to me to be a very strong reason why the Government have brought forward this amendment. There is a wealth of evidence to back the position that there is a significant problem specific to retail workers because of the nature of that work.
Clauses 37 and 38 provide for the bespoke offence of assaulting a retail worker. They also place a duty on the courts when sentencing an offender to make a criminal behaviour order; shop theft may often be linked to drug and alcohol abuse issues as a whole. Our definition of a retail worker is intentionally narrow, given the vital need to provide legal clarity and ensure there is no ambiguity for courts in identifying whether an individual is a retail worker when impacted by their job.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the hospitality sector. This sector is specifically excluded, but if he looks at the definition of retail premises in Clause 37(3), he can see that it would be open to a judge to determine what might be included. For example, cafes might have stalls inside the shop, so that could be potentially defined as a retail premise as well. There is no specific offence, and I would not wish to extend it to the hospitality sector, but a judge could potentially interpret some aspects of hospitality being within the retail sector under Clause 37(3).
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think the Minister’s remarks make quite a telling case. In particular, I was struck by the point that retail workers, because of the things they sell—cigarettes and tobacco—are more on the front line than people serving chicken nuggets, or whatever. I accept that there is a very good point that the retail sector needs to be guarded specifically, possibly differently from the hospitality sector. I shall look carefully at what he said.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Delivery drivers cover a wide range of sectors and roles and therefore including them could potentially cause an issue with definition and therefore with the courts using the legislation. Again, my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell of Beeston and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have put that case. I am happy to meet them, and we can examine and discuss and hear what they have to say outside the Committee.
With regard to public-facing workers, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, also mentioned, the previous Government—again to their credit—introduced a statutory aggravating factor for assault against any public-facing worker via Section 156 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I am advised that that would include, for example, train staff, and the aggravating factor would apply in assault cases when an offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty, or providing a service to the public. There may be areas of definition, but I hope that the issue that the noble Baroness has raised ensures that the courts treat the public-facing nature of a victim’s role as an aggravating factor when considering the sentence for an offence and will send a clear message that violence and abuse towards any public-facing worker will not be tolerated.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Davies for their support for my amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to further discussions, and to a meeting, although I have to say that I am slightly disappointed by his initial remarks. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, and my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lady Stowell, for the probing and constructive questions that they have put forward on this important part of the Bill. I emphasise again the everyday risk to retail staff and retail drivers who were, of course, so heroic during Covid. Without them, we would all have starved.
I hope the Minister will understand that I drafted a very narrow amendment advisedly; I reduced what was originally proposed by the experts from the retail industry. It very much confines the opportunity to retail, and to drivers from retailers. I am very happy to look at the wording and I can see that we need to keep it narrow. I have resisted a number of representations from other sectors in putting forward this amendment, because it is so important that we look at the evidence base, which seems to be stronger in respect of violence, both towards retail workers and drivers. I look forward to our further discissions; I may bring this issue back at Report. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled this notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 39 stand part of the Bill, to correct what has become serious misinformation. By way of background, Clause 39 repeals Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. That section was inserted into the 1980 Act by Section 176 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 provides that where a person is charged with a shoplifting offence where the value of the stolen goods is under £200, the offence is triable only summarily. Accordingly, low-value shoplifting cases will only be heard before magistrates’ courts and will not go before the Crown Court. This alteration has become the subject of significant misinformation, largely perpetuated by the party in government. In the 2024 election manifesto, it claimed that this had created
“effective immunity for some shoplifting”
and the Government’s policy paper in the Bill, published on GOV.UK, calls it “perceived immunity”. This, of course, is absolutely false. There is no immunity in any form for any shoplifting offences. Allowing an offence to be tried only in a magistrates’ court does not give anyone immunity.
The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for sentencing a person guilty of theft from a shop state that the starting point for low-value shoplifting, with little additional harm to the victim, is a “high-level community order”, with the maximum being a 12-week custodial sentence. For low-value shoplifting, with significant additional harm to the victim, the starting point is 12 weeks’ custody and the maximum is 26 weeks’ custody. It is clear, then, that magistrates’ courts can impose community orders and terms of imprisonment on offenders found guilty of low-value shoplifting. If the Government believe that is immunity, they clearly need to have a serious rethink. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government are making this change, since there is absolutely not immunity for low-value shoplifting. What can they possibly hope that this will achieve?
The reality is that Clause 39 is purely performative. Worse than that, it is performative politics with negative ramifications. Where an offence is triable either way, it is up to the magistrates’ court and the defendant to decide which court finally hears the case. If the magistrates’ court deems itself to have sufficient powers to try the case, a defendant is able to elect the court that their case will be heard by. Are we seriously saying that we will be permitting a person charged with stealing £50-worth of chocolate to be hauled in front of a Crown Court judge and jury? In such a scenario, the most likely sentence would be a community order for a few months’ imprisonment: that sentence would likely be the same whether the case was tried in a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court.
Why enable the possibility for a person charged with low-value shoplifting to elect to go to a Crown Court, simply for them to be handed the same sentence they could have been given in the magistrates’ court? There are around 73,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard by the Crown Courts. Many people are waiting years for their case to be heard. The last thing we need now is for more minor offences to be sent to the Crown Courts, adding to their already sizable backlog. This is not a solution to shoplifting. It is simply another way for a defendant to string out their proceedings. Permitting low-value shoplifting to be tried only summarily does not give shoplifters immunity but will serve only to clog up our already stretched Crown Courts.
What does create an effective immunity for shoplifting is the Government’s Sentencing Bill. Noble Lords will know that the Bill creates the presumption that a custodial sentence of less than 12 months be suspended. Even if a person is given a custodial sentence for low-value shoplifting, they will not serve any time in prison. If that does not give would-be shoplifters more incentive to steal, I do not know what does. Clause 39 is pointless and performative, and would be damaging to the swift passage of justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge the intention of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to oppose Clause 39 standing part of the Bill. I have listened with care to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but we firmly believe that the inclusion of this clause is necessary. There is one thing that we can all agree on: shop theft has risen at any alarming rate in recent years. It is a blight on our society; it causes loss and distress to retailers and it undermines the safety of retail spaces.
This Government are committed to restoring confidence in the safety of retail spaces, and to protecting businesses from escalating losses. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics are stark. Shoplifting almost doubled over the past five years, increasing to 530,643 cases in 2025. While multiple factors have contributed to rising retail crime, one persistent issue is the perception in many quarters that low-value theft has no real consequences, and some regard it as having been, in effect, decriminalised.
The noble Lord is right that Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act converted theft of goods worth £200 or less from shops to being tried summarily. I completely understand that the argument of the previous Government was that this would increase efficiency by enabling the police to prosecute instances of low-value theft and keeping the cases in the magistrates’ court, but it has not worked. Instead, it is not that there is immunity, but there is a perception that those committing theft of goods worth £200 or less will escape any punishment. My noble friend Lord Hannett referred to this in relation to the previous group of amendments.
Clause 39 will rectify this, and it really matters. Evidence from the Association of Convenience Stores shows that only 36% of retail crime is even reported. Many retailers choose not to do so; they think it is a waste of time, because they believe that the police will not do anything. The underreporting masks the true scale of the problem and leaves businesses vulnerable.
We must act decisively to support retailers facing this growing challenge, and Clause 39 does exactly that. It closes a critical gap by sending a clear and unequivocal message: theft of any value is a serious criminal act and will be treated seriously. By removing the financial threshold for so-called low-value shop theft, we are sending a clear message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators that this crime is not going to be tolerated and will be met with appropriate punishment. We are also making it clear to the retailers that we take this crime seriously, and they should feel encouraged to report it.
I acknowledge the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that by making shop theft triable either way there is scope for some cases to end up in the Crown Court. However, there are two reasons why the noble Lord does not need to worry about this. The first is that Sir Brian Leveson highlighted in his independent review that the risk is mitigated by the existing sentencing guidelines, which provide a clear and structured framework to ensure that the penalties remain proportionate. This means that, in practice, the vast majority of such cases fall well within magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers, meaning that they are highly unlikely to be committed to the Crown Court, for either trial or sentence. We anticipate that the effect on the backlog will be negligible. Secondly, as far as defendants electing trial in the Crown Court is concerned, they already have the ability to do this in relation to the so-called summary only offence. In practice, elections occur only in marginal numbers. There is no evidence to suggest that Clause 39 will change this.
I urge the noble Lord to join us in sending this very clear message—we entirely accept it was always the intention of the previous Government not to decriminalise this—to make it clear to everybody what a serious offence this is. I hope that he is willing to withdraw his opposition to Clause 39 standing part.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am, however, very disappointed by her continued defence of Clause 39. It is absolutely clear that the changes made by the previous Government do not create effective immunity for low-value shoplifting. All shoplifting offences are able to be tried in a magistrates’ court, where the court can impose a custodial sentence if necessary. Drink-driving offences are tried summarily only. I do not see the Government proposing to make that offence triable either way.
The fundamental point is that this change will not help anyone. It will not deter shoplifters. I hardly think a potential shoplifter will suddenly decide to stop because he might be tried in a Crown Court as opposed to a magistrates’ court. It will simply increase the Crown Court backlog without any benefit. This is a matter that I am sure we will return to on Report.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Requirements in certain sentences imposed for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 208 (community order: exercise of power to impose particular requirements), in subsections (3) and (6) after “subsection (10)” insert “and sections 208A”.(3) After that section insert—“208A Community order: requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a community order in respect of the index offence.(2) The community order must, subject to subsection (3), include at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not including any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be included in the order—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) In subsection (1)(b), the reference to an occasion on which an offender was sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting does not include an occasion if—(a) each conviction for adult shoplifting for which the offender was dealt with on that occasion has been quashed, or(b) the offender was re-sentenced for adult shoplifting (and was not otherwise dealt with for adult shoplifting) on that occasion.(5) In this section—“adult shoplifting” means an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 committed by a person aged 18 or over in circumstances where—(a) the stolen goods were being offered for sale in a shop or any other premises, stall, vehicle or place from which a trade or business was carried on, and(b) at the time of the offence, the offender was, or was purporting to be, a customer or potential customer of the person offering the goods for sale;“equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” means—(a) in Scotland, theft committed by a person aged 18 or over in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of “adult shoplifting”, or(b) in Northern Ireland, an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 committed by a person aged 18 or over in those circumstances.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be included in a community order if it could not otherwise be so included.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a community order which includes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied, notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.(4) After section 292 insert—“292A Suspended sentence order: community requirements for third or subsequent shoplifting offence(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of adult shoplifting (“the index offence”),(b) when the index offence was committed, the offender had on at least two previous occasions been sentenced in respect of adult shoplifting or an equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence, and(c) the court makes a suspended sentence order in respect of the index offence.(2) The suspended sentence order must, subject to subsection (3), impose at least one of the following requirements—(a) a curfew requirement;(b) an exclusion requirement;(c) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if—(a) the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—(i) relate to any of the offences or the offender, and(ii) justify the court not imposing on the offender any requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2), or(b) neither of the following requirements could be imposed on the offender—(i) an electronic compliance monitoring requirement for securing compliance with a proposed curfew requirement or proposed exclusion requirement;(ii) an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement.(4) Section 208A(4) (occasions to be disregarded) applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(b).(5) In this section “adult shoplifting” and “equivalent Scottish or Northern Ireland offence” have the meaning given by section 208A.(6) Nothing in subsection (2) enables a requirement to be imposed by a suspended sentence order if it could not otherwise be so imposed.(7) Where—(a) in a case to which this section applies, a court makes a suspended sentence order which imposes a requirement of a kind mentioned in subsection (2),(b) a previous conviction of the offender is subsequently set aside on appeal, and(c) without the previous conviction this section would not have applied,notice of appeal against the sentence may be given at any time within 28 days from the day on which the previous conviction was set aside (despite anything in section 18 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause imposes a duty (subject to certain exceptions) to impose a curfew requirement, an exclusion requirement or an electronic whereabouts monitoring requirement on certain persons convicted of shoplifting, where the offender is given a community sentence or suspended sentence order.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 215 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie speaks to a growing and deeply felt concern shared by communities and retailers across the country—that the persistent and habitual shoplifter is too often left to reoffend, with little intervention, limited consequences and insufficient support to break the cycle of offending. There has been a 13% increase in shoplifting offences in the year ending June 2025.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 216 in my name. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response to the proposal from my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower for tougher community treatment of repeat offenders. As it is focused on the community and on suspended sentence orders, it seems to fit in very well with the spirit of the Sentencing Bill, which we will no doubt be debating on a number of further days.
As the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, has already acknowledged, and as the recent Crime Survey shows, shoplifting has risen very significantly in recent years, especially since Covid. Indeed, we heard on the “Today” programme this morning that the average number of days it takes to deal with shoplifting cases has increased by 80% in the last decade.
My own experience has taught me something else: the biggest problem with shoplifting is not so much the law as the patchy and sometimes non-existent nature of police enforcement in relation to shoplifting and associated misdemeanours. The general acceptance that thefts worth less than £200—the noble Lord, Lord Hannett, was the first to mention that minimum—do not matter to the authorities is a particular bugbear of mine and of others who care about decency and limiting neighbourhood crime and its distressing effects.
That issue lies behind my Amendment 216, which would reverse that deplorable trend. My amendment would require the College of Policing to issue a code of practice to ensure that police forces also investigate shoplifting where the value of goods is less than £200. Letting people walk into shops, steal things and get away scot free eats at the heart of a civilised society, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, explained earlier. You only need to visit San Francisco in recent years to see the awful effects on its once golden streets. However, there is hope there: a Democratic mayor is at last seeing good sense. I hope the Government will follow that lead and consider my amendment this evening.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s Amendment 215, I have great sympathy for its suggestions. Electronic monitoring can certainly play a useful role, although there is mixed evidence of its ability to reduce reoffending. However, there are multiple challenges in implementation, including inconsistent use by probation services, delays in procuring new GPS tags and gaps in responding promptly to breaches. However, my main problem is that, from a policing perspective, I worry there is no slack available in police time to monitor curfews, exclusion orders or electronic tagging. I fear it may be counterproductive to give the police yet more work when they are having great difficulty coping with what they already have.
I have a similar reservation about Amendment 216, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. In principle, I would support a code of practice to improve enforcement. However, in the absence of more police resources, the danger is that this would only exacerbate the current situation, where chief constables are faced with having to rob Peter to pay Paul in other areas of policing, and victims of other crimes would likely suffer as a consequence.
I would stress prevention over cure. I draw the Committee’s and the Minister’s attention to a West Midlands Police programme that diverts repeat low-level shoplifters into services like drug rehabilitation. Since its pilot in 2018, it has been credited with saving local businesses an estimated £2.3 million through reduced shoplifting. Surely this is something we ought at least to investigate.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for tabling Amendments 215 and 216 respectively. I have great respect for both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness’s background means that she knows more than most about the corrosive experience of shoplifting and the effect it can have on those working in the retail industry. The noble Lord’s distinguished career as a police officer gives him great authority to speak about the challenges to police forces and their obligations to society that they should be fulfilling. I reassure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we are all on the same side on this. This is one of these situations where I am very keen to work with Members from all sides of your Lordships’ Committee to ensure that we deal with this social and economic menace efficiently and effectively.
On Amendment 215, I will repeat what I said a few moments ago: this Government take repeat and prolific offending extremely seriously. However, sentencing in individual cases must be a matter for our independent judiciary, and it must take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, as well as the statutory purposes of sentencing. Your Lordships will, of course, be aware that the courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders.
As some of your Lordships may be aware, until relatively recently I was a judge in the Crown Court, and I sentenced my fair share of shoplifters. There was a complete spectrum of those offenders, from the destitute, homeless young mother stealing nappies for her baby at one end to the shameless, organised shoplifting gangs who terrify and terrorise shop workers. As the sentencing judge, there was a toolbox of disposals of increasing seriousness available to me, so that I could match the appropriate sentence to the offender on a case-by-case basis. These included discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences with requirements and custodial sentences where appropriate.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with the sentencing guidelines making it clear that, when determining the sentence, sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions and the time elapsed since the previous conviction. But that repeats what is, in fact, common sense and what every sentencer knows. From my own experience, I can tell the Committee that the more frequently a defendant appears before the court, having gone out and done exactly the same thing that he or she had just been sentenced for, the more exasperated the judge becomes, who then starts imposing tougher and tougher sentences.
Despite the popular caricatures, judges do live in the real world. While sentencing a shoplifter to prison as a standard proposition will seem harsh, it can and does happen if the court concludes that there is no other way of stopping them. Importantly, this Government will introduce a whole range of options that will ramp up the community and suspended sentence powers for judges. In other words, the toolbox is getting fancier and more extensive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has said, sentencers are already able to impose a robust range of electronic monitoring requirements on anyone serving their sentence in the community. Where the court imposes curfews, exclusion zones and/or an alcohol ban, offenders must be electronically monitored, subject to individual suitability. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the effect on police resources. However, quite a lot of the monitoring is done by the Probation Service. As the noble Baroness is probably aware, the Government are putting a lot of additional resources back into the Probation Service to enable it to do this.
Soon judges will be able to add driving bans and bans on offenders attending pubs, bars, clubs and desirable social activities like sports and concerts, as well as some tough new geographical restriction zones, to the existing tools.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I love that the Minister said that judges will be able to do that. Will she use the new powers, which I think the Attorney-General is taking, to overrule the Sentencing Council if it tries to dilute those powers?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This is probably not the moment for me to embark on that one. This, of course, is simply about agreeing with the Sentencing Council’s guidelines in individual cases, not overriding them. I am confident that agreement will be reached, but, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, perhaps that is one I will deal with another day.
We are also about to expand the intensive supervision courts to deal with the root causes of these crimes by making repeat offenders come back in front of the same judge on regular occasions to see how they are doing. That is what is going to be available to judges.
Let us look at the other side of the coin for a moment. Many shoplifters have complicated backgrounds and complex needs, and sometimes electronic monitoring may not be an appropriate requirement to add to an offender’s sentence, even if this is their third or more offence. Many prolific offenders are homeless and lead chaotic lives. Even getting them to turn up to court on time can be a significant challenge. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement in some of these cases would be setting the defendant up to fail instead of helping to improve the outcome for the perpetrators and victims of crime and the public at large. It is all entirely case specific, and the judge is the right person to make that decision.
I am proud of our judiciary, which is working hard under very difficult circumstances at the moment, and I am asking noble Lords to trust our magnificent judges, because they do understand the problems that repeat shoplifting can cause and they understand the powers available to them to sentence individual offenders appropriately. This measure would put unnecessary constraints on them and make an already difficult job harder. I can also assure noble Lords that we are continuing to work with cross-government partners and police forces to consider new ways of targeting and tackling persistent and prolific offenders.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy and the depth of her reply, but I am not quite sure how we solve the £200 problem. The points she made about enforcement are very good ones, but the difficulty is this belief that if you steal something worth less than £200, nothing will happen to you; thus my parallel with San Francisco. What are we going to do about that?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The first thing we want to do is Clause 39, which, of course, was opposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. But in addition, this is about making it clear to everybody that it really does matter, and driving it through to the police that there should be no immunities—that there are no levels below to which this should not apply.
For all these reasons, I do believe these amendments are not required, but I would be very happy to discuss the matters further with both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, and I encourage them to speak with me if they feel there are matters that I have not fully taken into account. But, for now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her kind offer.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe focuses on enforcement. If the police do not investigate theft, if they do not take measures to deter and prevent shoplifting, no amount of legislation will change that. Creating a code of practice for low-value shoplifting could be a step in the right direction. Together with my Amendment 215—and I am grateful, I think, for the implied support of the Liberal Democrats—these measures target enforcement and punishment. This is in stark contrast to what the Government are proposing in Clause 39. The effective immunity for shoplifters comes from the inability of the police to catch those who shoplift. It is an issue of enforcement and investigation, which in turn all comes back to police funding and officer numbers—a point made by the noble Baroness Lady Doocey. Better enforcement is what will drive down shoplifting offence rates, not putting those cases before Crown Court judges. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Gaza and Sudan
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the House the opportunity to respond to the Government’s Statement in the other place on two of the most serious conflicts in the world today. Given that these are two distinct issues, I will address the situation in Gaza first and then move on to the conflict in Sudan.
The Government have been right to praise President Trump for his success in securing peace in Gaza. When the announcement that a peace deal had been reached was made, many were surprised. After two years of conflict, peace seemed a long way off. President Trump’s determination to secure peace was game-changing, and he deserves credit for this huge achievement.
We also welcome the UN Security Council’s decision to pass a US resolution in support of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza. As the US ambassador, Mike Waltz, said, this is
“another significant step towards a stable Gaza”.
It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to do. The UN resolution included a mandate for the International Stabilization Force. On the UK’s role with the International Stabilization Force, the Foreign Secretary said in the other place:
“We do not expect the UK to contribute troops”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/25; col. 636.]
Can the Minister please explain why the Foreign Secretary was not able to rule that out completely? What are the circumstances in which we would provide troops to play a role in the force?
The Foreign Secretary also confirmed that the UK is providing military and civilian deployment into the Civil-Military Coordination Center, which is US-led. This is an important contribution, and it is right that we play a full role in securing the peace. Can the Minister confirm what steps her department is taking to ensure that all Britons involved in these efforts are provided with the right advice to keep them safe? What contingencies has the Foreign Office put in place to support Britons working in the region, should the ceasefire fail?
Finally, we have been concerned for many months by the imbalance in the Government’s approach to Israel and Gaza respectively. Hamas must fully disarm: that is essential to the peace. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Hamas will have no role in running Palestine?
Ministers will be aware that Germany has lifted its partial arms embargo on Israel in light of the ceasefire. Can the Minister update the House on the UK’s decision to suspend certain arms export licences? Have the Government commissioned new legal advice in light of the ceasefire? If not, when will Ministers do so? Can the Minister confirm what discussions Ministers have had with our allies to ensure that we remain focused on the return of the final three deceased hostages, so their families may grieve properly? I know I speak for the whole House when I say: may their memory be a blessing.
I turn to Sudan. The appalling atrocities that are being perpetrated in that conflict must be brought to an end. We have consistently called for the United Kingdom to spearhead efforts to secure a ceasefire, and the United Kingdom should play a strong role in sanctioning all those who are responsible for those atrocities. I understand that officials have been instructed to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan. Can the Minister confirm when these sanctions will be implemented? As she is only too aware, we must move really quickly on all these items relating to Sudan.
On aid, given the extent of the physical obstacles to aid and the impassable routes, we know that His Majesty’s Government are looking into aid delivered by air. Time, once again, is the essential factor here. When will aid start being delivered directly to those who need it via air routes?
There have been concerning reports about British-made military equipment being used by forces involved in the conflict. Can the Minister please confirm what steps her department has taken to investigate these reports? When will those investigations be concluded and what action are the Government considering in light of these concerning reports? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I agree with the noble Earl: we thank the Government for bringing the Statement to Parliament and for this opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. Having asked for a Statement at every single opportunity since I became leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords, I note that this is the first one on Sudan since July—but it is welcome.
With regard to Gaza, we now have Resolution 2803 and, while it is positive that it is supported by the Palestinian Authority and the Arab states, it is worth noting that Palestinian statehood is not recognised as a right within it but is conditional. There is also a lack of reference to the continuing occupation.
The task ahead will be to move at pace with implementation and to begin peacebuilding. Peace remains an ambition, but the cessation of violence is an essential component. A credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood is now the agreed focus, and this is welcome. The most recent statements of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the right-wing elements of his Government, however, could not have been more clear: they believe that there should never be a two-state solution. How are His Majesty’s Government responding to this contradictory situation?
The UK can, as I have called for previously, provide an essential and practical service in the way forward, built on our expertise and experience in re-establishing education services, health services, law and order, and trusted judicial processes. Unless Hamas is disarmed, there will continue to be gangsterism and the threat will remain for Israeli civilians. The victims will also be Palestinian civilians. On the West Bank, I note even the Israeli President signalling his view this week of settler violence as “shocking” and crossing a “red line”. But a red line having been crossed, we would expect to see action, not impunity. I hope that the Government will continue their work on adding pressure to try to reduce the violence in the West Bank, which is now at unprecedented levels.
I have said previously that the task of reducing violence in the West Bank, the commencement of state building, and the work to clear rubble are a monumental task. It is 20 times the scale of the destruction of the Blitz in London in a quarter of the geographical footprint. But even this barely comprehensible destruction does not get close to matching the continuing horror in Sudan, a country that the House knows I have visited very frequently and that I love. In my ongoing work to support civilians, their bravery and resistance are a constant inspiration to me, but the urgency and scale of the atrocities need a comparable urgent and direct set of actions now.
In El Fasher in North Darfur, the latest credible estimates are that the total death toll in Gaza has happened in three weeks. It was signalled but not prevented, even though protection of civilian tools had been authorised by the Security Council and were available. The Minister will recall that before the Summer Recess I asked specifically what preventive actions were being taken. In the House, we discussed and even questioned the value of resolutions if they cannot be implemented. But this is the worst ethnic and genocidal atrocity since the mid-1990s, when the world was stained with Rwanda and vowed, “Never again”. It is happening now and it is about to get worse imminently unless action is taken.
It is now apparent that, as a result of a failure to prevent and the continuation of the supply of equipment and munitions to the RSF, it feels emboldened to commit further atrocities in El Obeid and Tawila. I say, with respect to our Government and other Governments around the world, that condemnation without action is not acceptable. As United Nations Security Council penholder, we have a global responsibility to secure co-ordination and then implementation of the protection of civilians.
The Independent Commission for Aid Impact report on Sudan made depressing reading—I know that the Minister will have studied it closely. From my experience, it is accurate. It is depressing to read that policy decisions have been made as a result of budget reductions, not through policy choices themselves. It is not only depressing but an outrage. The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons that there needed to be action, and I agree with her. But she did not say what, so can the Minister for Africa state what actions are now being proposed by the UK to prevent the atrocities that could be happening in weeks?
The Minister stated that funds were raised in the London conference last year, and the new additional funds from the UK are welcome, but that London conference raised only a third of what was needed for the humanitarian emergency last year. We know the consequences of the lack of a Sudan-wide UN arms embargo, no designated safe places for education and health, no kinetic action to prevent intelligence gathering and drone attacks on civilians, and no no-fly zones—all these are emboldening the RSF, and the SAF and its NCP backers are preventing humanitarian aid from going into the areas.
I hope the UK can now steer a regional co-ordination mechanism for humanitarian assistance. I hope the Minister can appeal to the Prime Minister so that he makes it a priority for this country on the global stage to ensure that there is a cessation of violence, that there is a prevention of atrocities, and that we can signal the work on the future of Sudan being for the civilians of Sudan, not the warring parties, which currently feel as if they have impunity.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, and I agree with much of what has been said. The noble Earl started by talking about the ceasefire in Gaza. We very much welcome this and will do everything we can to support the path to peace. As both noble Lords said, this is an early stage in the process and there is a very long way to go. It is unlikely to be smooth and without disruption along the way, and we need to be ready for that and to have the determination to do whatever it takes to see this through.
I was asked about the ISF and UK troops. It is not our intention that there should be UK troops. The Foreign Secretary said very clearly that that is not what we expect to happen, and there are many reasons for that. I was also asked about Hamas, which is an important question. It has long been the position of this Government and our predecessor Governments—and it will continue to be the position—that we consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. We therefore think that Hamas should have no role in the future of leadership in Palestine in any guise at all.
I am going to Brussels tomorrow to meet Mr Mustafa to talk about how the Palestinian Authority takes that role in the future, and to make sure that it is properly equipped and has the capability to do that. We are not ready today, but it is important that the international community, as appropriate, comes together and provides that support. We have been doing that and we need to increase those efforts at the moment. Accepting the board of peace and all the other structures within the 20-point plan that we still need to work through, it is difficult to see how, in the longer term, you can have a Government of Palestine without the Palestinian Authority.
Clearly, we keep the issue of arms sales under review. We are mindful of the decisions that our partners and allies make. We are at an early stage in the process and I would not rule out a change, but, at the moment, we need to monitor things and see how they progress. The return of hostages is absolutely vital. Those families have been through far too much and, tragic though it is, the bodies of their loved ones must be returned; we will continue to make the case for that to happen as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the plan as well, and our position is that this is the best chance we have of achieving peace at the moment. I know that there is some scepticism, and it is not difficult to find things that are missing and elements that it would be good to see, but we are in a position where this is the plan that we have. It is the plan that we must all work as hard as we possibly can to make work. Where there are things that we can add to it, and things that would help and ways in which we can support it, that is what we must do.
The noble Lord asks what we will do when the Government of Israel does not want, perhaps, to do some of the things that we would like them to do in relation to the plan. We need to have dialogue and discussion and take those issues as they come. We need to start from a position that, before this plan was agreed—very close to the moment when this plan was agreed—many of us were starting to lose most of our hope in relation to this. Yet the plan happened and the ceasefire happened. So we must proceed with a clear eye, but with the best intentions.
What are we doing to support the Palestinian Authority? We are doing a great deal, including the work with Michael Barber, who many noble Lords will be familiar with. We continue to work with those in the Palestinian Authority and we have a very good relationship with them. I have met them many times, as has Minister Falconer and many others, and we will continue to do that.
It has been a dreadful season for settler violence. It is the olive harvest season, and it has been some of the worst periods in terms of the volume and nature of violence that we have seen. I have met families in Palestine who have been forced to move many times, and their stories are devastating. We have used our sanctions regime to address this and we will continue to use that and other mechanisms, as the noble Lord would expect, to try to improve the situation of those living in Palestine.
The noble Lord asked me about sanctions on Sudan. Yes, we use some sanctions in relation to Sudan. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that we do not comment on future designations. But that does not mean it is a waste of time to raise it in this House. It is important that, where noble Lords feel that they would like to see more action, they use these opportunities to encourage the Government and make that clear, because that affects our calculation and our thinking. It is important that we know that that is the view of parliamentarians.
The issue of aid to Sudan was raised. There is an issue with the amount of aid, but really it is an issue of access. That is the problem. The restrictions that are placed on agencies, the registration requirements, the payments that are needed, the safety and the blocking of access are incredibly frustrating. I was asked about air drops. There are real problems with air drops and they are an absolute last resort. We do not know who the aid is going to. People have died when we dropped aid in this way in the past, and it is an incredibly expensive way of getting aid to a population we could reach easily over land, if only the warring parties would allow that to happen. We continue to argue, alongside Tom Fletcher and others—Tom Fletcher has been in Darfur this week and I am sure that this is one of the cases he will have been making—for the necessity of both sides, whatever else they cannot agree on, and there is plenty, to come to a position where they can allow access for humanitarian workers to operate safely.
We have looked into the issue of British-made equipment, and we are incredibly concerned about any evidence of anything happening of that nature. As the noble Lord will know, we take pride in the robustness of our systems, and we take incredibly seriously any issues there may be with diversion. These have been investigated. The items included in the reports were items that were sold many years ago. They were not bullets or guns or anything like that; it was something to do with a car engine. Nevertheless, those things should not end up in Sudan. We continue to monitor this very closely, because we do not want anything that has come out of this country to be used to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities that we are seeing in Sudan. We will keep that closely monitored and we will, of course, investigate any evidence immediately.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked about the ICAI report. It was a very good report. I read it; it was a thoughtful, well-rounded piece of work. The policy choices on Sudan referred to in the report are not things that have happened recently, or even under this Government. The policy choices that we are making in relation to Sudan have not been related to budget, because we have not reduced our budget for Sudan. We have protected it, for reasons that noble Lords do not need me to explain. We will also make sure that we consider the money that is used to support the fast-growing numbers of people living on the borders of Sudan, in Chad, Egypt and South Sudan, who are being displaced as a result of this hideous conflict.
The noble Lord asked what we were doing. He made a point about Statements only taking us so far and not having an impact on the ground; I have a lot of time for that opinion. We held a session of the Human Rights Council last week. The position on Sudan was agreed unanimously, which was encouraging. It is good. I was talking to a Minister from Chad to thank the Government of Chad for what they are doing. His view is very clear: the war is political, it needs to stop, and we can do all we want with refugees and aid but, until those warring parties stop and put down their arms, we will continue to face this hideous situation.
The fact that we were able to pass something unanimously in Geneva serves to bring attention and focus to this conflict, because we will need all our partners and allies to bring their attention to Sudan, in the way that they did, in the end, with Gaza. We will need international pressure and an international response to make progress on bringing about peace in Sudan—so they do serve a purpose.
I was also asked about impunity. We have the fact-finding mission that we support. We are supporting the ICC and local agencies to make sure that we have evidence and that we can seek those prosecutions which will be necessary very soon, I hope, to bring those responsible to justice.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests. In the Statement, the Foreign Secretary talked about the Manama dialogue in Bahrain. I was there, and I congratulate the Foreign Secretary for publicly calling for intense efforts to address the crisis in Sudan. She did it there, and that was the right place for her to do it. In the other place, Andrew Mitchell asked the Foreign Secretary to call Africa Union members to encourage them to encourage the US to take this awful slaughter as seriously as they have done with Gaza. Can the Minister tell us whether that is happening?
It is, of course, good news that that Resolution 2803 has been passed. I have returned from Germany today and, as my noble friend Lord Courtown quite rightly said, they have lifted the suspension on arms exports to Israel. The Minister said it is early, but they have done it. I therefore asking the Minister whether she will be recommending the same action. Also, will she now say to the Royal College of Defence Studies: enough of this banning of Israelis? At the time, it said that the reason it was banning Israelis was because
“the Israeli Government’s decision to further escalate its military operation in Gaza is wrong”.
That was on 15 September. The ceasefire took effect in October and we are now in November, so I hope that the Minister will call for that.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It would be a very good thing to get to a point where the process is embedded and the confidence is there to enable us to do that. I very much look forward to the day when these measures can be lifted, that is when we will know that there is stability in the process and confidence being built on both sides to enable us to do that.
On the African Union, yes, we do talk to its members. They attended the conference that we held, and I think that they would like to be able to do more. This is not a straightforward situation, and it is important that we stand alongside the African Union. There is something about African solutions to African problems. I would say that the situation in Sudan is a lot more than an African problem, and we need to be working very closely alongside them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend the Minister quite rightly recognised that Sudan is not just an African problem, as it were, and I am delighted by all that she says about what our Government are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly says that more aid will be needed, and indeed it will. I understand that access is the issue at the moment, but I urge the Government to ensure that there is more aid in due course, especially when it comes to the 3.5 million children who are malnourished. I wonder what we can do, perhaps working with civil society—maybe it is too early in Sudan—to give hope to the young people of that country. I am really glad that the Government are working with the surrounding countries where the refugees will be fleeing to, and I just wonder what we can do to build that up. In Gaza, for example, we gave young people hope by enabling some of them to come to this country on scholarships to go to university. Is there anything similar that we could do for students in Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Those are really important questions. We will continue to protect our aid to Sudan. We have supported 2.5 million people, we are the third largest donor internationally ,and we take our responsibilities to continue that support very seriously.
On the point about civil society and local organisations, in many areas in Sudan, that is your only option. We are doing okay at that, but we need to do a lot more and to get better at it. We need to encourage international NGOs, the United Nations and others who work there to work in a similar way. It is more efficient, as you build capacity while you are doing the humanitarian work. These organisations right now can reach people who are just really hard to support in other ways.
On the issue of students, I have met students from Sudan and some women who had just completed their courses. They are incredibly frustrated: they are well educated, articulate and have an awful lot to give; they want professions and careers in Sudan and their ambition is to be able to work to reconstruct their country and rebuild their society. It is right that we do everything we can to enable them to realise that ambition.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as has been said, this is the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, with half a million children already dead from starvation, 10 million more starving and millions more internally displaced or leaving the country as refugees. Tragically, the number starving actually is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza, Mali and South Sudan put together. We have seen appalling bloodshed in El Fasher over the last few weeks, and it looks like Tawila could be next. There are 650,000 desperate civilians. Given our role at the UN, what more can the Government do to protect civilians, to enable the negotiation of a ceasefire and to get the desperately needed aid that we have just heard about into the country?
I do not want to end on a discordant note, but this Statement is, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis said, long overdue. I just wonder, after the last three years, and the almost daily—obsessive, if I may say so—debates that we have had on Israel and Gaza, which has been discussed in Parliament more than any other issue, including the economy, the NHS, crime or education, why is it that we sit here in an almost empty Chamber? Why are there are no protests outside every day or marches taking over the streets of London every week? Why does the Minister think that, when it comes to the desperate plight of people in Africa, there is an apparent comparative lack of concern in Parliament and among the public? What could explain this?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no doubt that this is the worst humanitarian crisis of our time by a considerable measure. The number of deaths, the atrocities that are being committed, the lack of control and the normalisation of violence, particularly sexual violence, in this conflict are beyond anything that we have witnessed this century. What more can we do? We need to rally the international community to get more focus on this conflict. That, in the end, is how people will be brought to the negotiating table. We need to do everything that we can within the legal structures that we have and our work on the ground to ensure that testimonies are taken and evidence is gathered so there is accountability and an end to impunity. We need to continue to provide the practical support—both directly and through our partners on the ground—to provide the food, medicine and education that are needed by people who are in such desperate need.
Why has this taken so long to reach the attention of the country and internationally? There are many theories around this—I think the noble Lord, my friend, has his own. You can point to the lack of journalists in the area, or to the fact that Africa generally receives far too little attention. The noble Earl opposite says that there is desensitisation, and I have no doubt that that is part of it too. It is our job, however, to put all those things to one side and make sure that this conflict, and the suffering that it has brought about, receives the attention that it needs. If we do not, this will carry on for year after year. The only way that this will be resolved is with the international community—including but not only the African Union—stepping up, shining a light on it, coming together and resolving to conclude it.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I join those welcoming the commitment made in the Statement of £125 million of British taxpayer funding to Sudan and welcome the “life-saving support”, as it says, to over 650,000 people. Is the Minister aware of the comments made today by Jean-Martin Bauer of the World Food Programme, when he said:
“We have two confirmed famines in 2025—the first time this century—things have never been this bad”?
Yet the World Food Programme, which is providing life-saving food aid to 110 million people, is facing a 40% cut in its funding. Does the Minister agree that it would be unconscionable for the UK to cut its contribution to the World Food Programme while it is dealing with this unprecedented humanitarian emergency? If so, will she give that assurance to the House this evening?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will continue to fund the World Food Programme, because it is often the agency that can best get supplies mobilised at speed and at scale in these situations. The situation in Sudan is very difficult, even for the UN, because of the restrictions that are put in place and the inability to move supplies around in the way that we need to. We work with other agencies as well—the International Rescue Committee and others—because we need to be able to work with a range of partners because of the very challenging and dangerous circumstances in which we find ourselves having to operate. Unlike some others, we are absolutely committed to working with the World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNHCR and all the UN agencies, and particularly closely through Tom Fletcher, the co-ordinator, because we recognise and respect the fact that the UN is often—not always, but often—the best partner in such circumstances.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Purvis in his frustration about how long it has taken to have a Statement on Sudan. In particular, I have concerns around the credible evidence of atrocities that are highly possible in El Obeid and Tawila. What specific actions are His Majesty’s Government taking to prevent this? I particularly welcome the final section of the Statement, which says that a resolution was passed
“securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events”
in El Fasher and across Sudan, and further states:
“We need to ensure that teams can get in to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account, and I have instructed my officials to bring forward potential sanctions relating to human rights violations and abuses in Sudan”.
We need to get those individuals in to investigate and collate that evidence, because with every day that passes, the likelihood increases that those people, whether they be civilians or people in regular or irregular armies, may well get away with it.
On the same issue, will His Majesty’s Government have the same determination to hold those people to account who have committed war crimes in Palestine, be it in Gaza or in the West Bank, particularly given the settler violence that we have had? What clear message will they send to those individuals who are going around burning dairies and other livelihoods?
Finally, we have seen pictures of aid stacked up in places such as Jordan and the flooding that has happened in Gaza. What actions will His Majesty’s Government take to ensure that those tents, which are needed right now, are provided, as well as access to baby food and other essentials? I have talked about sanitary products for women in the past. Can we please ensure that they reach the people in Gaza urgently?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have been to those warehouses, so I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. It is very frustrating when we see aid and equipment that is desperately needed being unable to get to the people who need it. But access is improving; it could still get better. We have conversations about dual-use items and all those issues regularly, but things are slowly getting better. The noble Lord asked whether we treat violations of international humanitarian law differently in different places. No, these things are universal, and that is the approach that this Government will always take. On what we are doing about the atrocities and accountability in Sudan, that is an important question. We are working urgently to press the parties to agree an immediate three-month truce, as a beginning, to enable that aid to get in, but also to enable people’s accounts of what has happened, because it is important, as he says—and I think it is what he wants—that the individuals responsible find themselves in the International Criminal Court, which is where they belong.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I know that it is unusual to contribute a second time, but I have raised El Obeid and Tawila, as has my noble friend. I would be grateful for some specific reference to actions on what may be imminent atrocities carried out there. We know that the RSF has declared a truce and is using that, cynically and politically, to gather data and intelligence on its next victims. We also know that the NCP has said that anything that Burhan or SAF are saying will also not be implemented. What actions are we now taking to prevent what could well be imminent atrocities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct to remind us of this. I think everybody watched what happened in El Fasher, could see it starting and could tell what was going to happen. We have the same fear in the pit of our stomachs now about Tawila and other places too. We have to work alongside the Quad process that the US is leading, and there are other processes too. The UK supports all of them and is working as closely as it can. We have organisations that are speaking to both sides, including with armed groups on the ground. It is a case of using every possible lever to make the case that people will be held to account. The world is now watching in horror at what has been happening, and we must choose every method that we can to try to prevent any further atrocities occurring. We are all sickened to our core at what is happening and what we fear may be about to take place.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
“Retail crime: deterrent action by shopkeepers(1) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time, then they may—(a) a. circulate that photographic evidence to—(i) any other retailers they consider appropriate,(ii) their Head Offices or security control centres,(iii) any organisations engaged by them in deterring shop theft or arresting thieves, and(iv) any trade body or publication which is relevant to their business;(b) publish the photographs prominently in their stores or shops;(c) publish the videos and or photographs on social media.(2) Where shopkeepers or retail outlets of any kind have obtained video or photographic evidence of theft of goods from their shop or store and the alleged thief has not been caught at the time then they must—(a) retain securely the original or hard copy of the evidence which must be time and date stamped;(b) ensure that the evidence is not edited in any way;(c) send a digital copy of the evidence to the appropriate police force as soon as reasonably practical, but they may collate that and any other occurrences and send them as a bundle;(d) supply information about the nature and value of the goods they believe were stolen;(e) store any other evidence relating to the alleged theft including any eye witness accounts.(3) When the police receive any evidence or information under subsection (2)(c) and (d) they must undertake the following steps—(a) log and record all the evidence they received;(b) do a facial check on the Police National Database;(c) do a check on the passport and immigration databases;(d) check the photos, videos and reports received against any other reports to see if there is a pattern or repeat thieving.(4) When it seems to the police that—(a) there are other similar examples of the person stealing from shops,(b) there is a pattern of offending,(c) the alleged thief is acting in concert with others, and(d) there is evidence that that shop or retail outlet is regularly targeted,the police must initiate a full investigation with an objective of arresting the thief or thieves and bringing them to trial.(5) Where a person accused of being a shop thief has had information published under subsection (1) and it is later proven that the person was innocent or a photograph of the wrong person was published, then that person is entitled to compensation by the shop or retail outlet which published it.(6) The compensation under subsection (5) is £300 per day for each day that the information was wrongly published.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any of the provisions of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
There has been a rise in theft from shops and complaints from store owners that the police are not doing enough to stop it. These provisions aim to deter shop thieves and make it easier for the police to take action because the shop owners will have provided sufficiently reliable video and other evidence to justify full investigations and prosecutions.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as well as moving my Amendment 216A, I shall speak to my Amendments 216B and 216C. These are three large proposed new clauses, and I assure the Committee that I will not be speaking to any other groups of amendments tonight.
Why have I tabled these when there are already laws on shoplifting? I am doing it because theft from shops is now completely out of control, and we need new laws, powers and penalties. The first thing which has to change is the terminology. I disagree with my noble friends and the Minister in the last discussion calling it “shoplifting”, since this diminishes the enormity of the criminal rackets now operating. It sounds rather like the legitimate “grab and go” takeaway food we see in shops, although I assume people are supposed to pay for it before they go. This is not shoplifting; it is shop theft, with some organised on a massive scale as conspiracy to steal.
My amendments address the concerns of the British Retail Consortium following its annual survey published in January this year. It showed that losses from customer theft reached a record £2.2 billion in 2023-24 and that we have record crime levels, despite retailers spending £1.8 billion on prevention. That is a total cost of £4 billion. Retailers want the police to take retail crime more seriously, improve response times, use technology and data sharing to target prolific and organised offenders, and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
Key actions retailers advocate for include improved police attendance. Retailers want police to prioritise attending incidents, especially when an offender has been detained by staff, violence has been used or key evidence such as forensics need immediate attention and collection.
Retailers want effective investigations. They ask for all reasonable lines of inquiry to be pursued, including collecting and using CCTV footage, eyewitness statements and forensic evidence to identify and prosecute offenders.
Retailers want the targeting of prolific offenders. They want a proactive approach to identify and focus resources on the small number of repeat offenders responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. This includes using criminal behaviour orders and, for serious cases, electronic monitoring.
Retailers want better data sharing and intelligence. Businesses are keen to share data and intelligence through partnerships and platforms, such as Project Pegasus and the Disc system, to help police forces build a national picture of organised crime groups and link up crimes for unknown offenders across different locations.
Retailers want easier and consistent reporting, with a streamlined, consistent and easy way to report all incidents, as underreporting due to complex systems and a perceived lack of police response is a major issue.
Retailers also want visible deterrence. They support “hot spot patrolling” and high-visibility policing in high-crime locations to deter potential thieves and provide reassurance to staff and customers.
Retailers want tougher sentencing and legal measures. The industry advocates for a robust judicial response, including the introduction of specific laws such as a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker—which I am pleased to see we are going to have—to signal that these crimes are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.
Finally, retailers want collaboration. Overall, shops want stronger collaboration between the police, the criminal justice system and businesses to address the root causes of offending and ensure that staff are supported in providing evidence and attending court.
I am arrogant enough to say that my proposed new clauses address all these concerns and are related. The first would give shopkeepers and retail outlets the powers to deter shop thieves. The second would give powers to arrest and detain them. The third would tackle organised shop theft as conspiracy.
Let me explain my proposed new clause described in Amendment 216A. The Information Commissioner’s Office has suggested that it is inappropriate to publish photos of known thieves because it may infringe their data protection rights. What nonsense—it is a great deterrent, and my subsections (5) and (6) would provide for compensation if a shop makes a mistake and publishes the wrong photograph. Retailers such as M&S, Boots, Morrisons and Greggs are now contributing data, including photos and CCTV footage, of repeat offenders to a national database which is shared with the police and used internally by security staff—for example, on “Banned” boards in staff-only areas—to prevent entry. That is a compliant method which seeks to get round, or comply with, the Information Commissioner’s guidance.
The other thing shops must do—and I suggest they will do—is make it easy for the police to prosecute. The police will naturally not respond to a phone call that says that some anonymous bloke stole from a shop and made a getaway and they do not know who it is; I would not respond to that myself. However, if the shops keep all photographic and video evidence—although it will be digital these days—timed and dated and of court evidential quality, with statements from the observers, then the police will think it worth while to investigate; at least, they will have no reason not to do so. Following on from that, my proposed new clause says that, if the retailers have done all these things and have good evidence which has a good chance of catching and convicting thieves, then the police must take investigative action along the lines in my subsections (3) and (4). I submit that these measures will lead not only to more just convictions but also to deterrence.
My proposed new clause described in Amendment 216B moves on from deterrence to detention. Retail outlets must have the power to arrest and detain suspects under proper controls, but very few now do so because they are afraid of the consequences of getting it wrong. Even when they get it right, criminals will sue for wrongful arrest or excessive force, no matter how untrue that is. My proposed new clause sets out powers for shops to arrest and detain shop thieves, but with very strict conditions as set out in subsection (2). I will not go through all of them, but they are tough conditions on shops and security guards which guarantee that evidence is retained, and the rights of the suspect are properly guaranteed, just the same as if he or she had been arrested and detained by the most woke police force in the country.
The security staff must be properly trained, use minimal necessary force and wear cameras all the time to capture the action. When a suspect is detained in a secure room, it must be covered by cameras at all times and they must be told why they have been arrested. There must be no intimate body searches and there must be female security staff for female suspects, et cetera. It is of prime importance that the police must be called as soon as possible.
When the shop has complied with all those requirements, the police must then respond and do their duty. If the shop has done a gold-plated job of collecting the evidence and handling the suspect properly, then the police must take their responsibility seriously and there would be no question of releasing the suspect on the spot. Of course, they can release or charge them when they have reviewed the evidence at the police station and interviewed the suspect.
Noble Lords may point out that this regime may be perfect for the big retailers and big shops but will not work for the corner shops and smaller retailers. I accept that, but it is highly likely that individuals who steal from small shops will also steal from large multiples, as the type of store selected often depends on the specific motivation and perceived opportunity of the thief rather than a strict adherence to only one type. Ultimately, shop-thieves tend to be generalists in terms of store format, seeking out environments with low security and high opportunity. Large multiples often have more security resources, such as CCTV and security guards, but their sheer size and high footfall can also make them easier targets in certain areas. Small shops may have less sophisticated security, making them a target for burglars or opportunistic thieves, but owners often know their “regulars”, which can act as a deterrent for some. We have got to remove the fear of shops and staff doing their own arrests, and that means professionalising their arresting and detention regime and then empowering them.
A few weeks ago, I was in the large Boots down at Cardinal Place in Victoria when I saw a guy in a hoodie come in. He went to a cosmetics shelf, opened a carrier bag and was scooping the shelf contents into it. He then started to go out. I started shouting, “Stop that guy. He is thieving. Stop him! Stop him!” and I charged after him in my chair. He began to run, so I powered up to warp speed but lost him when he went down into the Underground. I went back into Boots, sought out the one and only person on duty and said, “Call the manager. Look at the video tapes”. The response was that there was nothing they could do and there was no point in interfering, as it was just one of those things.
That is not good enough and we are all paying the price through the increased cost of goods to cover theft losses. I might even go so far as to say that Sycamore Partners, the private equity firm that owns Boots, has possibly decided that it can make more profit from letting people steal things than employing enough staff to stop them stealing in the first place. I only surmise; I do not know that for a fact.
Some 10 minutes later, when I was in M&S, an American woman rushed up to me and said she had chased the man who had stolen my shopping, but she had lost him in the Underground. I explained that it was not my shopping but thanked a United States tourist for trying to do what no Brit in the area had tried to.
I am no Mr Jenrick, waging a one-man fight against criminals in London, but a few months ago I was in a small retail outlet in a large supermarket, only a few hundred yards from here, where I saw a man stuffing his jacket pockets full of things, a few yards away from a security guard. I shouted to the guard that someone was thieving. The guy gave me a mouthful of abuse and then walked past the guard, giving him two fingers.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long. I speak as somebody who for most of their adult life was a retailer, until the good people of the Uxbridge constituency sent me into the other place—but I continued to be a retailer, behind the counter and also having to deal with putative shoplifters.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is putting forward. He put it very well: “shoplifting” makes it sound not so important; “shop theft” is important and has to be tackled. The measures to support retail staff are very welcome. Shop theft is very frightening for staff, who are very often younger people or women. When they see people stealing, they often do not know what to do. If they knew they had some back-up, it would be of great reassurance. With that, I will sit down and hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of alternative approaches to reduce shoplifting. However, they fail to address practical realities and risk creating more issues than they resolve.
The proposal in Amendment 216A would allow shopkeepers to circulate photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation, but this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix.
The noble Lord himself said that this is likely to be able to be worked only in large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by one or two people. Shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring timestamps.
Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff, as proposed in Amendment 216B, may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards.
Finally, Amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft. The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crime. The police have said that international criminals are targeting UK shops in what a Co-op boss describes as “organised looting”. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect to the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to 10 years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities.
Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, and a new direction is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local forces overstretched, underresourced and unable to focus on solving crimes such as shoplifting—I stress the words “unable to” rather than “unwilling to”. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing, with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled Amendments 429 and 430 later on in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the intention behind the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He is absolutely right to refer to it as theft. It is theft, under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. He is right that there is no such offence as shoplifting.
We have all heard the same stories from businesses, large and small: prolific offenders walking out with hundreds of pounds of stock in broad daylight; staff frightened or, in many cases, not allowed to intervene; police too stretched to attend; and, time and again, the same individuals returning to commit offence after offence because they believe, with some justification, that nothing will happen to them.
My noble friend’s first amendment in this group deals with the ability to share clear evidence of theft with those who need to see it. At present, retailers might be reluctant or legally uncertain about whether they can circulate images of offenders, even to neighbouring stores, to their own head office or to crime reduction bodies. Yet, these are precisely the channels that allow patterns of offending to be identified and prolific offenders to be caught.
The amendments set out a lawful, proportionate system. Images can be shared where a theft has occurred, provided the originals are preserved, time-stamped, unedited and sent to the police. This ensures the integrity of evidence and prevents misuse. Importantly, it provides a remedy and compensation if a photograph of the wrong individual is mistakenly published. My only concern here is that being required to pay £300 per day in compensation might deter the shop owner from circulating the evidence.
I am particularly supportive of Amendment 216B. We know that a number of retailers have told their staff to not intervene when they see a person shoplifting. This has led to numerous instances of brazen theft, whereby people walk into a shop, grab armfuls of products and walk out in full sight of security guards and staff. Such scenes make a mockery of law and order. The amendment permits the lawful detention of suspected thieves by trained security staff. Shopkeepers should not have to look on helplessly while brazen thieves simply walk out of the store. What my noble friend proposes is eminently sensible: properly trained staff equipped with body-worn cameras, using only minimum force, operating under strict rules and with constant video recording. This is not a free-for-all; it is the opposite. It is a controlled, transparent, safeguarded process that both protects the rights of suspects and gives retailers the ability to intervene proportionately when theft is happening before their eyes.
The amendment also places obligations on the police when they are called. They must attend promptly, take custody of the suspect, secure the evidence and make decisions based on a full review, not a hurried assessment at the store door. This is entirely right. Retail staff are repeatedly told to detain no one because the police will not come. The amendment would send the opposite message. When retailers correctly do their part, the police must do theirs.
Finally, Amendment 216C addresses a growing and deeply troubling phenomenon, whereby organised gangs loot shops, raid entire streets or retail parks and steal thousands of pounds-worth of goods. These are not opportunists; they are organised criminals. Yet, the system too often charges them with individual, low-value thefts rather than with conspiracy or organised crime offences. The amendment establishes that, where there is reliable evidence of at least 10 thefts involving two or more individuals, a full investigation with conspiracy charges must be instigated where appropriate. The sentencing framework my noble friend proposes is proportionate and targeted: higher penalties for organised groups of five or more and the automatic confiscation of vehicles or property used in the crime. These are necessary deterrents: the current penalties are not.
Taken together, these amendments represent a robust but balanced response to an urgent and worsening problem. They support shopkeepers, empower security staff and assist the police with the collection of evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by, in part, sharing the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I agree with him. It is not shoplifting; it is shop theft. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on that same point. When I began my working career 45 years ago after university with the Co-op on a management training course, we called it “leakage”. I found that term offensive then, and I find it offensive now. It is shop theft. So I agree with him that there needs to be an effort made by the Government to tackle this issue.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, the Home Office is working with police representatives through the National Police Chiefs’ Council to make it easier for retailers to report crime. The current Policing Minister and the previous Policing Minister are now both supporting a Tackling Retail Crime Together strategy launched by the chief constables and industry. We had a summer of action on shop theft, which involved visible policing on the streets and targeting hotspot areas.
This winter, the Home Secretary plans for police forces across England and Wales to partner with local businesses, local councils and police and crime commissioners to target shop theft and anti-social behaviour during the peak retail season. There are plans to put 13,000 extra boots on the ground, from neighbourhood policing through to special constables and PCSOs. The measures in Clause 39, which we debated earlier, try to raise the level of importance of shop theft. As a Government, we recognise that we want to take action on that.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on some of these proposals. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who, again, has great experience of the retail world, I take the issue of shop theft extremely seriously. Probably like him, I am one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who have apprehended a shoplifter and reported them to the police, along with the manager of the shop, and I have been present at the shop theft interview as part of my duties. It was shop theft then and it is shop theft now, and it should not be tolerated, whatever the level of that shop theft.
On the measures the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, brings forward, such as Amendment 216A, which seeks to enable deterrent actions by shopkeepers through the use of video or photographic evidence, it is important that we have evidence such as that supplied by CCTV. Widespread introduction and publication, which is one of the objectives of the noble Lord’s amendment, would meet the objectives of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. However, it would potentially impinge on the rights of individuals, who may or may not be guilty, and could well incite vigilante action and undermine the fundamental presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. I have no objection to CCTV, but the noble Lord needs to be careful with that, which is the reason why I cannot support the amendment.
Before I move on to the noble Lord’s other amendments, let me say that I appreciated his support for Operation Opal. Retailers are able to refer cases of organised retail crime to Operation Opal, and the national police acquisitive crime intelligence unit then investigates. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation because it is an operational issue, but again, it shows the importance we place on the issue of shop theft.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I did not think my amendment was creating considerable extra powers of arrest for the security guards, but it seems that the current power largely mirrors a lot of things that I put in this amendment. My question then is, why are so many shops scared to use it? I appreciate that the retail unit or outlet has to determine whether they let the security guards arrest people, but there is certainly a fear among many security guards in this respect, and many shops say, “We can’t let you arrest people”. We must, somehow or other empower, them to do so.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is a genuine fear about what the response would be, and I understand that. The days when I—and potentially the noble Lord, Lord Randall—stopped a shop theft in a retail premises were a long time ago. The climate was different, and now there is the carrying of knives and the threat of violence. That might be a fear, and it is up to individual shops to determine their own policy. Clause 37, which deals with attacks on retail workers and will apply to a whole range of retail staff, adds an extra protection. It will be up to individual shops, but it is important that those two measures are seen as coterminous. Protection of retail staff in the event of shop theft and assault is a further measure to support action on shop theft. However, it is ultimately for individual stores to determine their policy.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of multiple thefts and planning for thefts. I find it objectionable to see criminal gangs organising mass hits on shops, but that is already a factor that aggravates the seriousness of the theft offence. If, therefore, there is evidence that multiple parties were involved in a theft, each of those parties could and should be charged with theft, as well as conspiracy to commit theft. The amendment would require the police to consider charging with conspiracy to commit theft if there is evidence that two more people are involved. I know that the noble Lord knows I am going to say this, but it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide on relevant charges, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. I do not want to put on statute what charges the police or CPS should bring, but again, the potential is there should they wish to do so.
I will touch briefly on the sentencing aspects of the amendment. At present the maximum penalty for theft is seven years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for robbery is life imprisonment. Conspiracy to commit theft or robbery has the same maximum penalty as the base offence. The effect of this amendment, therefore, would be to create a form of conspiracy to commit theft offence that would potentially have, if fewer than five people were acting together, a lower maximum penalty than theft or conspiracy to commit theft have now.
As we discussed previously, the amendment also introduces minimum sentences. I made it plain in our debates on Monday that minimum sentences are rare in law. Parliament has set them in statute only exceptionally. They are not appropriate in this instance. Sentencing guidelines for theft, which courts are required to follow unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so, already highlight when considering the culpability of an offender factors such as involvement of others through “coercion, intimidation or exploitation”. The issue of
“sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning”
is also relevant. The other aggravating factors that the court must consider include taking account of previous convictions.
Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment, for my reasons and those that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned. However, I do not want him to leave the Committee tonight thinking that this Government are not committed to tackling shop theft. We are, through the measures that we have taken and are encouraging police to take, through the measures in this Bill to change the definition of shop theft in Clause 39 and in providing protection for retail workers in Clause 37.
Shop theft is shop theft. It costs all of us resource on our bills. It costs businesses resource. It is money which should be invested in the local economy rather than going into the pockets of people who opportunistically, individually, for whatever reason—from poverty to organised criminal gangs, from drug abuse to alcohol abuse—commit shop theft in many of our stores. I want to make sure that we do all we can to reduce it and to provide deterrents to it. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, including my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and, for his full support for my amendments, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said that if someone is stealing from their shop, shopkeepers do not have time to go through the video cameras to get the evidence. If a shopkeeper has someone stealing from their shop and cannot be bothered to look at the TV cameras to see the evidence for it, he cannot complain about shop theft. If he has the evidence, for goodness’ sake, he should use it. I do not think that the noble Baroness read my amendments on all the protections that I have built in for those who do want to arrest criminals. The Minister set out in his excellent speech all the powers of citizen’s arrest that a security guard or a shopkeeper can have, but the noble Baroness said that no one should have the power to arrest except a policeman who is properly trained. That is rather bizarre, to use a word that was used earlier about my amendments.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
The noble Lord is misinterpreting what I said. I did not say that it was not possible to look at CCTV coverage. I said that if you are a small shopkeeper and the shop is being run by one or two people, you are not going to sit there and do everything that the noble Lord has suggested in that amendment—date stamp things, take photographs, make sure that everything is absolutely hunky-dory, that it is handed over in a file. That is just pie in the sky. It will not work. If the noble Lord is going to quote me, can he please quote me correctly?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I said in my speech that I understood that small shops would have difficulty with this, but also that the people who steal from small shops in the main also steal from the big shops. If one can prevent them from stealing from the big shops and arrest them there, we will also bear down on the theft from the smaller shops. Of course, smaller shops have a more difficult problem, but it will not be solved by just putting more policemen on the beat.
Of course, the police have to prioritise. In London, in particular, they have to put terrorists at the top of the list, along with rape, murder and serious violence, so shop theft will inevitably be lower down. I was familiar with the Oxford Street experiment a few years ago; I do not know whether it is ongoing. There, the shops discovered that if one shop—say, Debenhams or Selfridges—phoned up and complained, it was no good. If they co-operated among themselves, they could get enough evidence together to justify the Met then coming along and grabbing some people who were working in a concerted effort to steal from their shops. They also discovered that, if they gave the police a gift-wrapped package of good evidential material, then the police would take it seriously. That is the key message here. It is bogus to suggest that just having more police will deal with this problem.
I liked what the Minister said. I have no criticism whatever of the Government on this. We are on the same side. I liked his strong words that this is not shoplifting, it is theft. I also liked his saying that we must make it easier for the shops to report crime, and that is what I have been suggesting. He did not support publication of photographs; I understand his nervousness there. However, I hope he does support the co-operation between shops and others to share all the photographs they have internally between their own security staff and the shops, and possibly any police liaison units, so that they can develop a full picture of what is going on. That makes it easier as the guys move from one shop on Oxford Street to somewhere else; they can move in and grab them in the act.
I am sorry that I suggested lower penalties. I am not sure that I am getting soft in my old age; I did not intend to lower penalties at all. Of course, even with the maximum the Minister has suggested, this will still be halved when the person is sent to prison. All penalties are halved. Again, I take the view that there is no harm having minimum sentences for this.
As I say, I am grateful for the words of the Minister. We cannot stop here. I am not sure that we can come back to this on Report, but we have constantly to bear down on shop theft. It is completely out of control. It has been getting out of control for many years. All Governments keep nibbling away at it, but we are not managing to crack down on it. I hope that, over the next few years, we will look at all aspects of trying to deal with this. If some of the ideas in my proposed three new clauses were considered workable, I would have no qualms with the Government grabbing them and implementing further measures. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the relevant part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41 as the part of the United Kingdom in which the person aged 18 or over engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, the government amendments to the child criminal exploitation offence in Clauses 40 and 41 are intended to provide legal certainty and further tighten the grip of the law against those who seek to draw children into criminality.
At the request of the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice, the child criminal exploitation offence was extended UK-wide in the other place. As the offence is committed where an adult intentionally takes action to cause a child to commit criminal conduct, it is now necessary to provide further clarification about where the child’s conduct must be criminal. This is owing to the fact that the criminal law is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a child’s conduct that is criminal in one may not be criminalised in another.
Perpetrators who exploit children for criminal purposes do not care about the UK’s internal borders, so it is right that we ensure that this new offence prevents them from taking advantage of them. Government Amendments 217, 220, 221 and 223 to 230 ensure that it does not matter whether the intended conduct of the child is criminal in the part of the UK where the adult is acting to exploit them or the part of the UK where they intend the child to act. If it is criminal in either one, the perpetrator can be prosecuted. If it is not criminal in either one, the offence is not committed.
Amendment 231 puts beyond doubt that a perpetrator commits the child criminal exploitation offence where the child they have exploited is under the age of criminal responsibility. Even though a child under 10 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or under 12 in Scotland, cannot technically commit an offence or be prosecuted for it, they can still be exploited, and it is right that this offence says so clearly and explicitly on the face of the Bill.
Amendments 487, 493 and 510 make consequential amendments to the general provisions at the back of the Bill. Together, these amendments demonstrate the Government’s unwavering commitment to leave no space for perpetrators who target children for criminal purposes to expose loopholes or to escape to.
There are a series of other amendments in this group; the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have Amendments 218, 219, 222 and 222A. I want to listen to what noble Lords say and will respond to any comments on those amendments at the end of my comments. I beg to move.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, as the Minister has explained, are about child criminal exploitation. This is something that, quite honestly, when I started my career, we did not think of—it is something that I think we all became aware of in the last decade, particularly during Covid. I declare my interest as having worked with Action for Children and its previous iteration, National Children’s Home, for many years—most of my life, really. I was in its governance for 10 years and have been a long-term ambassador ever since.
Action for Children has worked with a number of children who have been criminally exploited. Some of them we would talk to when they had been picked up during Covid, for example, and exploited by being made to carry drugs and move them around the country. The threat that they and their families are frequently under is unbelievable and harmful to them, their future and family cohesion. Even where I lived in County Durham, where the police used to say we were among the safest in the country at one stage, the grandson of some friends of mine, who was bored and had been left just playing on his computer, went into the small town and met up with his mates, but they were spotted and the exploiters got them involved in drugs. The result was massive mental health problems and lots of suicide attempts. The family have worked and are still working to try to bring some reality back to their lives, make them safe and enable them to continue to grow, learn and develop. I cannot tell your Lordships how excruciating the life of the family has been. I know this is an important issue, and I am relieved that the Government are looking at it and seeking to address it in the Bill.
It is important that the Government are introducing a new criminal offence of criminally exploiting a child, along with other measures, to deal with those perpetrators. That is a positive move that has my full support. However, Action for Children thinks that there needs to be a means of protecting the child victim, whatever happens to the perpetrator—because sometimes it is difficult to find and catch the perpetrator. One of my later amendments deals with introducing another measure to protect the child even more, but I shall deal with the amendments in this group first.
Amendment 218 simply tries to be clearer about what is involved in the exploitation of children in these circumstances. I just want to make sure that all of us recognise that this is something that police forces are only just now coming to terms with handling. In the past, they have not had to think of the child as both a perpetrator and a victim. How do they do something totally outside their normal activity? Instead of simply treating the child as a perpetrator of a crime, they can now recognise that that crime has come about because of the manner of the exploitation of the child. Because this is new, and because police forces and others in the criminal justice system have not dealt with this sort of thing for very long and are really not sure how to handle it, we thought that it would be useful for Parliament to discuss it and consider putting more detail about what has happened to the child in the Bill. That is what this amendment is, and I would be interested to know what others and the Minister think. Being more specific, I recognise there are problems with that in any legislation, but I also think that, because this is so new in many senses in the criminal law, we really need to be a bit more forthright in how we describe what can happen.
Amendment 219 really relates to the fact that, as the Bill stands, a child would need to be coerced into criminal actions, but very often the actions of the child may not in themselves, if you just saw the instance, be criminal. For example, they may have been asked to carry money—but actually that is exploiting them and leading them into danger, which will have subsequent consequences. Again, it is very difficult to work out how you handle people. This is simply about trying to make sure that even if the act, such as holding or carrying money, is not in itself illegal, it is none the less part of the exploitation that makes the life of the child virtually impossible because of the threats around whether they carry the money and whether the offender gets the consequences of the child carrying the money in the way they want. That then becomes very serious for the child, even if the act itself was not illegal. This amendment will make it clear that an action that supports or facilitates criminal activity, while not being a crime itself, should none the less be taken into account. I think that would be helpful to the police, prosecutors and the courts as well.
Amendment 222 is just about how we determine that a child is 18 or not. There is a lot of debate on that in a series of areas of work at the moment, many of which my noble friend on the Front Bench will be pleased he does not have to deal with. Well, I suppose he does have to yes, in the Home Office. There is a big debate around migrants: how do we actually know how old the child is?
This amendment has been tabled because we are concerned that there would be a defence in the Bill that the perpetrator thought the child looked 18. We must think about that, because we need to know that children are children until they are 18 and that young people are still exploitable. We have to take account of this and say, “That is wrong, and you cannot do it”. Simply saying “I thought they were 18” is not a good enough excuse. I know so many young people who are leaving care at around that age. Criminals may believe that it is okay to exploit them, because yesterday was their 18th birthday, and they are now out of the foster care or children’s home that they had been in. That happens, and it is unacceptable not to think about it, at least, when we are looking at this provision. We need to understand what this order is about, and what we can do to make sure that we more effectively protect children than we have been able to do in the past.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 222 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, which she has so ably explained. All the amendments in this group seem to be a good idea. I also acknowledge the help of the Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition.
This is a very simple amendment: there is a concern that the offence of child-criminal exploitation, as written in the Bill, gives the perpetrator a defence if he or she reasonably believes that the child is over 18. We understand that this is a common part of legislation around other forms of abuse and exploitation; we believe that it will hinder the prosecution of perpetrators. During the Jay review into child criminal exploitation, many witnesses pointed to the role of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation. However, the Jay review found that perceptions of children’s complicity in their exploitation meant that some groups of children, and black boys in particular, were not receiving an adequate safeguarding response. We strongly recommend that this part of Clause 40 is removed. It is a small piece of text that would have a profound effect on young victims.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to put my name to Amendments 218, 219 and 222. The Minister mentioned that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has Amendment 222A. She apologises for not being here this evening, but said that she thought that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, were so much better than her own, that she would not move them anyway—so that deals with that.
I am a governor of Coram, and used to be a trustee there. Coram is very involved in some of the activities that we are talking about. The Jay review is like a gut punch to the stomach. I had heard of it; I had not actually read it, but did so last night, and did not have a particularly undisturbed night’s sleep. What it contains is pretty horrifying.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which strengthen and clarify key issues. Amendment 218 from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would define how children are affected by child criminal exploitation. This should help police and reduce the chances of inconsistent decisions. It is necessary because, as seen with other crimes where the police or CPS have latitude to define such matters, it often works to the detriment of the child or young person.
Amendment 219 is equally helpful. It would make provision for the occasion when a child has committed something that may not be illegal, but which might lead them into future criminal behaviour. The way that child criminal exploitation works is often very similar to grooming. Without support and education, a child or young person may end up in trouble.
Amendment 222 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and recommended by the Children’s Commissioner, clarifies that a perpetrator of child criminal exploitation does not have to believe that the child or young person was under 18. This makes sense as Clause 40 currently provides an easy get-out for perpetrators to say, “But I thought they were 18”. The Joe Dix Foundation welcomes this new stand-alone offence but has also called for a national register for all perpetrators who are convicted of child criminal exploitation. Can I ask the Minister whether this is something the Government might consider?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. The group largely seeks to clarify the Bill as it stands and that is important when we are addressing child exploitation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, for the amendments tabled in his name. I know we may not always see eye to eye at the Dispatch Box, but I can wholly support the principle behind his amendments in this group.
It may seem like semantics to clarify that offences may differ in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is an important point. We must ensure that the legislation allows crimes to be prosecuted only where they are crimes. His Amendments 217 and 220, and the many consequential amendments, aim to ensure that this is the case. Similarly, his Amendments 487 and 493 extend the devolutionary power to make regulations for the area of child criminal exploitation. It is right that this is consistent. Those who create the laws should have the legislative right to make provisions within their remit.
We also broadly support the principles behind the other amendments in this group, which aim to give more protections to children. Amendments 218 and 219, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, seek further to define what constitutes child criminal exploitation and extend the provisions to actions that may support criminal activity while not being criminal themselves.
Amendments 222 and 222A aim to narrow the scope of reasonable excuses that offenders can give when claiming to believe that the child was over the age of 18. The sentiment behind these amendments is a noble one. Whether the adult believed they were a child is largely inconsequential to the exploited child. Therefore, if the adult is not to be prosecuted, the court must be absolutely certain that they did not believe the child was under 18. That being said, I am slightly wary of completely disapplying reasonable excuse as a defence. It would take away the opportunity of defence in the very rare cases where the adult had a genuine and proven reason to believe the child was an adult. As I say, this is very rare, and it is still criminal exploitation, but we must still account for it.
Overall, this group is sensible, procedural and necessary; I therefore offer my support to the Minister’s intentions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top for their amendments, and to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for putting his name to them and for his supportive comments.
Before I lose the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about a national register, I will just say that the Police National Computer and the child criminal exploitation prevention orders can impose notification requirements on persons subject to orders requiring them to inform the local police of their name and address. I had that on my phone before I peered at my notes, and I did not want to lose that point.
I will start by welcoming Clause 40. It is a positive, forward-looking clause that will help support the reduction of child exploitation. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled, and I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the amendments I have tabled.
Amendment 218, tabled by my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, would require that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to have been committed, the perpetrator had used
“threats, physical force, intimidation, persuasion or any other means”
against the child. In doing so, my noble friend seeks to illustrate the ways in which children can be criminally exploited. However, I put it to her that, in specifying the required means by which an adult gets a child to commit criminal conduct, the way in which the amendment is phased risks narrowing the application of the offence, because the prosecution would have to additionally prove those means of exploitation took place. Currently, the child criminal exploitation offence does not require proof that the child was subjected to threats, physical force, intimidation or any other harmful ways in which the child’s compliance was obtained by their exploiter. This is because, as a Government, we are very clear that children cannot consent to their own exploitation, so the offence could be committed regardless of whether and how the child was compelled to engage in the intended criminal activity.
Although my noble friend’s amendment includes the words “any other means”, which mitigates against any narrowing of the scope of the offence, I do not consider it necessary to include an illustrative, non-exhaustive list in this way. It would cause courts potentially to wonder about its purpose as a legal test and may have the unintended consequence of limiting the circumstances in which the child exploitation offence may be made out. I want my noble friend to think about that. I suggest to her that the prosecution wants to get the best case, and, by accepting her amendment, we might end up narrowing the potential success of legislating against this offence.
My noble friend also tabled Amendment 219, which would more specifically capture adults who intend to cause a child
“to engage in actions that support or facilitate”
crime. My noble friend indicated in her speech that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the offence of child exploitation also includes causing a child to commit an action which, while not itself illegal, can lead to future criminal behaviour. We have looked at this amendment in some detail, but I consider the objective is already met by subsection (1)(a)(iii) of the clause, which captures where the adult does something to the child now to facilitate or make it easier to cause the child to commit a criminal act in the future—the noble Baroness can find this on page 59 of the Bill as currently drafted. I hope she will look at that and reflect on it as part of these discussions, before any further discussion takes place on Report.
Furthermore, actions that support or facilitate crime may already amount to an offence, such as the offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Where an adult intentionally causes a child to commit an offence, the child criminal exploitation offence may be committed.
I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in support of his Amendment 222. This amendment seeks to remove the requirement that, for the child criminal exploitation offence to be committed, it must be proved that the defendant does not reasonably believe that the victim is aged 18 or over. My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned the issue of migrants—we are currently examining facial recognition issues in relation to migrants, and we had a discussion about that in the other Bill that I am taking through the House at this moment on immigration very recently. But she makes a very important point. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that all adults who target children to draw them into crime can be caught by this offence, but that is precisely why the reasonable belief test is important—to ensure that perpetrators who deliberately and intentionally target children to commit crime are correctly identified and prosecuted. If there was no requirement to prove a lack of reasonable belief that the alleged victim was a child, it would risk criminalising people as exploiters of children who genuinely did not intend or contemplate involving a minor in criminality.
We must remember that the child criminal exploitation offence requires no proof of harmful behaviours against the child, such as coercion, force or threats. This goes back to the first point that I mentioned in response to my noble friend’s first amendment. It is committed simply when an adult engages in any contact or conduct towards or in respect of a child intending to cause them to commit a crime. The exploitative nature of this offence is the imbalance of power, which is exercised by an adult in deliberately and purposely seeking to involve a child in crime. Where that is not a factor in a case, as demonstrated by what they believed about the child’s age, there are other more appropriate offences that might be charged. For example, where a person encourages or assists someone to commit an offence regardless of their age, there is already an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007.
Again, I welcome the discussion that we have had this evening, I welcome the contribution of Action for Children, and I welcome the discussion that we have had from the Children’s Commissioner for England, who called for this amendment due to concerns that perpetrators will seek to take advantage of considerations around the reasonable belief of age to undermine the credibility of victims and potentially escape prosecution. I welcome those contributions to the debate. I want to give them, with my colleagues in the Home Office, serious consideration. However, I make the point to the noble Lord that at the moment we do not consider reasonable belief of age to be a loophole, as is suggested—and in support of that I make a number of points.
First, there is a test of reasonable belief that does not necessarily require that the defendants have specific knowledge about the victim’s age, which would be a higher burden. Secondly, a perpetrator’s claim as to their belief alone will not be enough to escape prosecution, as prosecutors can and, I hope, would establish either that they did not believe the victim was 18 or, even if they did, that that belief was not reasonable. Thirdly, it only applies to children aged 13 to 17, not the most vulnerable children aged under 13. Finally, it follows established precedent in other offences, where the core offending relates to an adult’s conduct towards a child—for example, to child sexual exploitation offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on Amendment 222A—she is not here today. It is commendable that someone has looked at other amendments and decided not to move their own; it is a very un-egotistical way of approaching this business.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, says “Cross-Bench”. I will take that as a bonus point for the Cross Benches. It is a noble approach to take towards the amendment. So I will not deliberate on those points as I would potentially have done, but I ask the noble Lord simply to pass on my thanks to the noble Baroness for her self-awareness on that issue, which is commendable.
I hope that, with those comments, my noble friend and other noble Lords will not press their amendments, will reflect on what I have said and, if need be, will consider this outside the Committee. I commend the amendments in my name to the Committee.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (ii) so that it covers the child doing anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends sub-paragraph (iii) so that it covers facilitating the causing of the child to do anything outside the relevant part of the United Kingdom, if the child doing that thing in that relevant part would constitute an offence.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(1A) In subsection (1)(a) “offence” means an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in subsection (1)(a), references to an offence are to an offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.
“(c) a reference to a “part” of the United Kingdom is to—(i) England and Wales,(ii) Scotland, or(iii) Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the definition of “offence” (in consequence of my amendment of this clause at page 60, line 3) and defines “part” of the United Kingdom for the purposes of this clause and Clause 41.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 40 at page 59, line 35.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is partly a drafting change, and partly consequential on my amendments of Clause 40 at page 59, lines 31 and 35.
“(7) In this section—(a) a reference to a child doing an act which would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over);(b) a reference to a child doing an act which, if done in a part of the United Kingdom, would amount to the commission of an offence includes the child doing an act which would amount to the commission of the offence if (in addition to it being done in that part of the United Kingdom) the child were aged 10 or over (or, in Scotland, were aged 12 or over).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that an adult may commit an offence under clause 40 (child criminal exploitation) in respect of a child who is under the age of criminal responsibility.
Lord Hampton
“Meaning of exploitation: modern slavery(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (meaning of exploitation) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) Something is done to or in respect of the person which involves the commission of an offence under section 40 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025 (child criminal exploitation).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to ensure criminally exploited children continue to be identified under the modern slavery framework.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 232 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I admit that I am using an old amendment list, so some other people might also have added their names, and I apologise if I have missed them.
My proposed new clause amends Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include child criminal exploitation within the definition of “exploitation”, aligning it with new provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill. Clause 40 of the Bill creates a new offence of child criminal exploitation. The offence rightly focuses on the prosecution of perpetrators. It is vital that we do not lose sight of the child victims of criminal exploitation. We must ensure that there is a consistent definition that can be used to identify children formally, so that every child gets the support they need to escape this abuse.
This amendment is also essential to close a serious legal gap that leaves criminally exploited children at risk of prosecution rather than protection. Without corresponding changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, legal protections remain inconsistent and inadequate. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which provides a statutory defence for victims of exploitation, does not currently cover criminal exploitation explicitly. This leads to inconsistent application across the criminal justice system. Evidence from the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and ECPAT UK shows that police and prosecutors frequently struggle to apply the existing statutory defence to children exploited into criminal activity.
Children often continue to be treated as perpetrators rather than victims, despite clear indicators of exploitation for criminality. In 2024 alone, over 2,891 children were referred to the national referral mechanism as potential child victims of criminal exploitation. Yet many of these children still end up in courtrooms, not safeguarding systems. Young people exploited for criminality are particularly vulnerable to being prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. This undermines the UK’s obligations under international law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which requires states to facilitate the non-prosecution of trafficked children for offences committed as a result of the exploitation.
Including child criminal exploitation within the definition of exploitation in the Modern Slavery Act is essential to ensure that children are formally recognised as victims under the UK’s framework for identification, allowing them to access the full range of protections and entitlements under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, including specialist support.
We have the opportunity to fix this now by ensuring that legal definitions and protections are harmonised. Without this amendment, we risk embedding a two-tier system which recognises exploitation in theory but fails to protect child victims in practice. Clear, consistent legislation will empower professionals to intervene earlier, prevent inappropriate prosecutions and ensure that exploited children receive the safeguarding support they need. This is a targeted, evidence-led amendment that strengthens the Bill and ensures that our legal framework reflects both the reality of child exploitation and our responsibility to protect those at most at risk. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 232A and 262A are in my name. I have also signed Amendment 232, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has given an excellent explanation of his amendment, so I will just say that I agree with him.
Both my amendments provide a defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are coerced into committing offences. Both amendments have a simple purpose: to ensure that victims of exploitation are not treated as criminals for acts they were compelled to commit. The amendments are supported by academics and charities such as the Children’s Society.
The Bill, as it comes before the House, creates two new offences in Clause 56: child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. These are important steps. They recognise forms of exploitation that front-line workers, police officers and charities have been grappling with for years. However, the Bill currently does only half the job. It recognises the exploitation, but not the victim. Unlike the long-established offences of modern slavery and human trafficking, these new offences do not come with a bespoke defence for victims who commit unlawful acts as a direct result of their exploitation. Unless a victim can prove duress—a notoriously high bar—their only option is to argue that what happened to them also amounted to slavery, servitude, forced labour or trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act. That is a legal contortion, and it is simply impossible for many victims.
It leads to outcomes that I do not believe this House would wish to endorse. For example, a child forced by older criminals to store drugs or weapons, a young person threatened into carrying out low-level offending under fear of violence, or someone whose home has been taken over by a gang who is then compelled to assist in their criminal activities would all be vulnerable to finding themselves before a court, even though their exploiters are the ones truly at fault.
We have been here before. When Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, we accepted, rightly, that victims sometimes commit offences because they see no realistic alternative. Section 45 of that Act created a defence for those victims, carefully limited, and subject to important exclusions. It has not opened any floodgates. It has provided protection only where the courts are satisfied that the offence was the direct consequence of the exploitation, and that a reasonable person in the same situation and with the same relevant characteristics would have acted in the same way.
These amendments have the aim of applying the same principle to the new offences that we are creating today. The amendment on child criminal exploitation mirrors the structure of Section 45. It would not excuse all behaviour and would not allow serious offences listed in Schedule 4. It would apply only where the prosecution cannot disprove that the child acted because they were compelled to do so, that the compulsion arose directly from their exploitation and that a reasonable child of the same age, sex and vulnerabilities would have seen no realistic alternative. In other words, this is a defence grounded in both common sense and compassion.
The same is true of the amendment concerning victims of cuckooing. Anyone familiar with this phenomenon—and many police forces now are—knows that victims have often been threatened, groomed, manipulated or assaulted. They may be obliged to let their home be used for criminal activity, and they may then be forced to play a role within that activity. The amendment would make clear that, where the compulsion arises directly from the cuckooing, those victims should not be criminalised for acts they were compelled to perform.
These defences would not apply in most cases. They would apply only when the court is satisfied that the offending was the direct result of the exploiter’s conduct, not incidental. They offer a fair and proportionate safeguard. They would also prevent the injustice, indeed the absurdity, of Parliament recognising exploitation on the one hand, while punishing its victims on the other. When vulnerable children or exploited adults are used as tools by criminal networks, the criminal justice system should not compound their suffering by treating them as willing participants. These amendments would complete the logic of the Bill and would ensure that the law protects those who need protection most. I hope that the Minister will look at these amendments and see the validity of what I have explained.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is in fact what we are really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with the expression “modern slavery” and I think it is something we should have as a tribute to the late noble Lord, who was a fantastic Member of this and the other House.
I welcome the Government’s intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation offence and cuckooing offence and commend them for doing so; it is very important. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment, as far as I can see. I am not a lawyer, as I explained in the last group; I have more skills on marking things down in a sale—and thank goodness we did not have Black Friday in my day.
This is a probing amendment. I believe—I have the figure here—that, in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the national referral mechanism for criminal exploitation, including alongside other forms of modern slavery, and that 65% of all victims referred were in that age group. As far as I can see, they are not covered and perhaps they should be. What I do not understand—I am very willing to be lectured and taught on this—is what happens if this criminal child exploitation has started for somebody at, say, the age of 15 and a half but does not come to light until they are 18 or 19, which could easily happen. Will they be treated in a different way? As I mentioned very briefly, there are obviously young adults who have cognitive impairment and who in effect—I am sure that this is not the correct expression—have the mental age of a child.
I fully support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones also put her name to my amendment. I fully support them and I think that this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, for all the reasons that have been given. I would, however, like some clarification on what can be done about those young adults and where the law we are creating is going to put them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy-making.
Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure that children criminally exploited under Clause 40 continue to be identified within the modern slavery framework. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we on these Benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but very important debate on the issues of child criminal exploitation and the interface with our modern slavery law. It is a vital issue on which I think all of us across the Committee wish to ensure we are taking coherent action.
Amendments 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263 from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seek to include child exploitation within the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Amendment 263 also seeks to add cuckooing and broader adult criminal exploitation to the meaning of exploitation under Section 3.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the securing of services by use of threats, force or deception, and the use of children and vulnerable people to provide services and benefits. Such services and benefits may include criminal activity. Therefore, criminal exploitation is already captured by the broad terms of the existing modern slavery legislation. This is as good a point as any to pick up a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in moving his amendment about alignment with our international law obligations. I say to him that the Government are satisfied that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 adequately protects victims of modern slavery in line with our international law obligations. Exploited victims, including of child criminal exploitation, may benefit from the statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in expanding the meaning of exploitation; that is, to ensure that victims of criminal exploitation are not prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. The statutory defence in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, to which I just referred, is there to protect slavery and trafficking victims. Where a victim of criminal exploitation meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, they may have access to the statutory defence, as they do now.
Similarly, Amendments 232 and 262A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a stand-alone defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who have committed offences as a result of their exploitation. Again, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to protect victims of exploitation from prosecution, but we consider the Section 45 defence already provides the necessary protection. Furthermore, when victims of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are aged under 18, these amendments would require evidence of compulsion, whereas the Section 45 defence does not require evidence that a child has been compelled to commit an offence, only that they have done so as a direct consequence of their exploitation. These amendments may therefore—I accept completely inadvertently—provide a more limited defence for victims of child criminal exploitation than is clearly the intention.
Beyond a statutory defence, whether to charge a person is an operational decision for police and prosecutors, who must consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. They will apply operational discretion and consider whether potential existing defences in the common law, such as duress, are relevant, or whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
In speaking to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised the issue of why we are limiting the list of victims to children aged under 18 and talked about vulnerable adults and those with cognitive impairment, or those who pass the threshold into adulthood over the course of their exploitation. Let me try to address those points. The offence is aimed at stopping adults from exploiting children, and we consider this is justified because children require special treatment and protections from harm. Vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The cuckooing offence would also seek to recognise the harm caused by the takeover of a person’s home for criminal purposes. This is often the home of a vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addiction or physical or mental disabilities. Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation, which not only causes harm to the victim but often facilitates violence and exploitative forms of drug dealing, and drives anti-social behaviour in communities. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I apologise for not being clear on this. If, for example, there were two members of a family and they were victims of this offence, and one was 17 and one was 19, would there be discrimination in how they were dealt with?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, I am not a lawyer and I do not have his fantastic experience in the retail sector as an alternative. But to be clear, as I understand it, we have to draw a line somewhere, so there would be a differentiation in what protection was available under which bits of the Modern Slavery Act, or the new offences, depending on whether they were 17 or 19. We are trying to make it clear that we consider that there are alternative protections for those over the age of 18. In child criminal exploitation, we draw the line of childhood as being under 18 in these cases, and the focus of that is usually children well under the age of 18. The point is taken that at any discrete boundary there will be some cliff-edge consequences, but we consider that vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The whole point of the cuckooing offence is that it is about taking over a person’s home for criminal purposes, and often that could be a vulnerable person, most probably a vulnerable adult, whether through existing mental health issues, substance addiction, or whatever. I hope that has clarified the matter to an extent at least.
It is probably worth stressing before I conclude that, in trying to give the offences we are introducing in the Bill as great a utility as possible, there will be guidance for prosecutors stating that, where a suspect is a potential victim of modern slavery, in so far as is possible, a charging decision should not be made until a trafficking decision has been taken. This protects potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being charged and prosecuted until it has been determined whether they are a victim.
We are working with criminal justice partners, as outlined in the modern slavery action plan, to develop a national framework for the investigation of modern slavery. This will include guidance for front-line officers on the Section 45 defence to support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against victims.
It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance which will accompany the new offence. In so far as we are able, we will try to give a good framework, through guidance, as to the order in which decisions around charging should be taken, to avoid some of the consequences we have been discussing in the debate on this group of amendments.
As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all coming at this from the right place, with the right motivation. I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken has welcomed the Government’s intention to create the new offences around child criminal exploitation and cuckooing; these are gaps we need to fill in the statute book. However, these amendments are not necessary, and nor are they the right approach. We want to avoid the unintended consequences they might well bring. Therefore, I hope, in light of this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in my introduction I failed to acknowledge the help of the Children’s Society in their facts.
I, too, thank noble Lords who took part in this very important and fairly short debate. I trust the Minister, but the legal issues he was talking about were way over my head, so I might go and look at Hansard, get a bit of advice and maybe come back to this on Report. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.