Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
For too long in this country, there has been a divide between access and excellence when it comes to the arts. Our Government believe that everybody deserves access to excellence—everyone, everywhere. We invest around £600 million every year via Arts Council England, and earlier this year, I was delighted to announce the £270 million arts everywhere fund to support exactly that aim.
Steve Witherden
In Wales, expressive arts is a mandatory part of the curriculum, helping to develop pupils’ creative, artistic and performance skills while also improving cognitive development, attainment in maths and English, behaviour and wellbeing. Given that England has seen a 42% decline in expressive arts GCSE entries since 2010, what plans does the Minister have to restore the status of arts and creative education and support a broader, more balanced curriculum?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right to lament the decline in the number of pupils across England taking arts subjects, and this Government are determined to turn that around. That is why the Education Secretary and I have worked closely together. My hon. Friend will have seen the announcement she made about a broader, richer curriculum for all pupils, alongside the work I am doing to rebuild a broader, richer set of opportunities outside of the classroom. Under the last Government, enrichment was erased from both our classrooms and our communities. Under this Government, that is going to change.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
UK Music’s excellent “This is Music” report found that it has become increasingly difficult for new musical artists to be heard and for careers to be built. Recompense through streaming services is minuscule and artist remuneration a real issue. On the live side, Brexit has made touring the EU almost impossible, and grassroots venues continue to close. Does the Secretary of State recognise that without meaningful action, we risk creating a music industry where only the privileged and rich can afford to build a career?
Lisa Nandy
I very much share that assessment, and we are determined that that is going to change. The hon. Member will be aware of the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts has been doing on the grassroots music levy. That is a voluntary levy. We hope the industry will step up and meet our target of 50% of all ticket sales imposing that levy in order to support grassroots music venues by the end of the year, but we have been really clear with the industry that if that does not happen, we will intervene and use statutory powers if necessary.
On the specific issue of EU touring, the hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is pursuing that as a priority with the European Union, and we are confident that we will be able to build a better deal for not just our music artists but music artists right across Europe.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Since its success as European capital of culture in 2008, Liverpool has played a key role in the UK’s creative industries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that success should not only be measured in economic terms, and can she explain how social value and tackling the under-representation of groups should be used as a measure of success by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
Lisa Nandy
As, I think, the first black MP ever to represent Liverpool, my hon. Friend’s achievement is absolutely noted in this House. The way in which she has carried that work forward into this House, to ensure that she may be the first, but she certainly will not be the last, and that the voices of all people will be heard, is something that I deeply admire, and I know many other Members feel the same.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the vibrancy of the Liverpool city region has always been built on the most diverse range of music, voices and experiences. That most quintessentially British band, the Beatles, drew on their Irish heritage, Indian influences and the experience of black Americans from the south, and brought that vibrant music scene to Liverpool. I am working with the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others to make sure that we continue that tradition and that the widest range of voices from across Liverpool are heard as part of that. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and training— I said that as quickly as I could!
The music and dance scheme funds exceptional schools that train the next generation of artists who will go on to lead the industry, both on and off the stage. Those schools nurture talent regardless of wealth, and are the very definition of social mobility, but some are now at risk of closure because the fund is not guaranteed beyond next year. Will the Minister guarantee secure, ringfenced funding so that those vital institutions can continue to increase access to an industry that has been identified as a leading area of growth?
Lisa Nandy
I am very aware of the pressures the hon. Member describes. My Department is currently completing business planning, so we will be able to set out precise allocations going forward. I have also been working closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Education Secretary to ensure that Government take a cohesive approach to this issue across the board.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
We regularly engage with colleagues across Government on issues that affect young people, especially through the development of our national youth strategy. This year alone we are investing over £145 million to deliver projects that reflect young people’s priorities across our country.
Callum Anderson
Bletchley youth centre has been a trusted hub for our town for over 60 years, supporting 400 young people in the town every week by providing affordable activities and outreach to prevent antisocial behaviour, but that service has been stretched due to years of underfunding by the previous Government. There is hope, however, with the new Labour Government and their youth strategy. Will the Minister set out what steps her Department is taking to ensure that Bletchley youth centre and others like it receive the support that they need to help our young people?
Stephanie Peacock
Our national youth strategy focuses on rebuilding youth services so that young people have access to people who care, something to do and places to go. A key aspect of our forthcoming youth strategy will be to ensure that funding goes to grassroots organisations such as Bletchley youth centre, and I would be delighted to visit when my diary allows.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
The stakeholder forum has made significant progress in its work to support the decision on the future of terrestrial television beyond 2034. The forum has gathered and presented evidence on many aspects of this very complex issue. The work of the forum will be vital in ensuring that we arrive at the best decision for both UK households and the television industry itself. A decision that maintains both universal television access, which is important, and the sustainable public service broadcaster ecosystem is what we are aiming for.
Martin Vickers
The Minister will be aware of a recent survey that shows that there is very little knowledge among the public of the future changes, but those who are aware are concerned about not only obtaining the service but its cost. What guarantees can the Minister give that the costs will not be too heavy?
Ian Murray
Those are all considerations for the working group. It has met four times already and is due to meet again in December. I have met the group to discuss these issues since I have been in post. Digital inclusion and connectivity, as well as the cost, are all active concerns and they will be weighed by Government when we make the decision, but let us not forget that this is a decision from 2034 onwards—nothing will change before that.
David Mundell
Older people and those in rural constituencies such as mine, which unfortunately still have unreliable broadband, rely on terrestrial television. The excellent Westminster Hall debate that I led demonstrated cross-party concern about this issue. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned MPs to discuss how we can safeguard terrestrial television?
Ian Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has taken this issue forward. The Westminster Hall debate was very engaging and interesting, with contributions from across this House. I read the transcript of the debate just yesterday. As the stakeholder forum nears the end of its work and completes that process, I would be very happy to meet him. When the assessment is complete, my office will be in touch. It is always a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and for the record, when we next meet, it is his round.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are taking a new approach to youth services, rebuilding the landscape and improving local co-ordination. We regularly engage with colleagues across Government to drive this shift through the development of our national youth strategy that is co-produced with young people.
Mr Dhesi
Under the previous Conservative Government, youth services suffered the most devastating and deepest cuts in modern times: over £1 billion was slashed, more than 1,000 youth centres shut and young people were left without safe spaces, driving up crime and harming attainment. What exactly are this Government doing to give hope to young people in Slough, the youth capital of Britain, by properly investing in youth services?
Stephanie Peacock
Indeed, Mr Speaker; we have a brilliant one opening in Barnsley very shortly. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. This Government are taking a new approach to youth services, which is why we will be launching our national youth services strategy shortly.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Many youth services and clubs in my constituency rely on indoor sports facilities in the winter, but due to poorly maintained and financed buildings and decades of chronic underfunding, those youth buildings are now unsafe to use. For example, on St Matthew’s estate, the youth have been left without any community sports hall, after the only facility was forced to shut down due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. What is the Department doing to ensure that provisions and services for our youth get support, so that our children can play during the cold winter months?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes an important point. Youth services are vital for giving young people safe, healthy and fulfilling lives. Under the last Government, 1,200 youth centres closed their doors and 4,500 youth workers lost their jobs. That is why this Government are taking a different approach.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is of course important to support our music industry, including studios, and that is at the heart of what we are trying to do through the music growth fund, which has £30 million in it. The music levy goes straight into grassroots music, supporting studios.
Greg Smith
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame.
I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?
Ian Murray
The creative industries sector plan is right at the heart of this Government’s industrial strategy, and music plays a key part in that. We will have the music 10-point plan shortly, and the £30 million music growth fund will support grassroots music, including those kinds of studio. I was at Co-op Live in Manchester just last month launching Discover! Creative Careers. It has a studio there, and it is trying to open up to the public. This is about access to studios and also about supporting them. I hope that the ticket levy, which we hope to get to 50% of all shows next year, can support studios, as well as the other growth projects we have in place.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government believe in the power of grassroots sport, which is why we announced investment of more than £400 million in the future of grassroots facilities. Our ambition is for girls to have equal access to any facility that we fund, doubling access to priority slots for women and girls over this Parliament.
Mrs Blundell
I am delighted to see sport for women and girls growing in prominence and recognition across the country. To ensure that we meet the ambition of women and girls in these spaces, we need the facilities and infrastructure to support them, hone their talent, and pave the way for the next generation. What steps are being taken by this Government to provide women and girls with access to high-quality sports facilities, including in my area of Greater Manchester?
Stephanie Peacock
We support all aspects of sport for women and girls, and we are working alongside the sport sector and local leaders to develop a place-based approach to funding. We launched our women’s sport taskforce to drive a decade of change in women’s sport. We will ensure that we deliver facilities that each area needs, so that women and girls can participate in sport in Greater Manchester and across the UK.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman refers to a consultation being carried out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I have spoken to my ministerial counterpart. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is this Government who have announced £400 million for grassroots facilities.
Mr French
No commitment there to stop the concreting over of sports pitches. Alongside the National Lottery, the regulated gambling sector provides more than £400 million of crucial sponsorship to British sports, whether that is horseracing, the Betfred Super League, Sky Bet EFL, William Hill’s sponsorship of Scottish football, or direct funding for grassroots programmes. After Labour’s short-sighted £1 billion tax raid yesterday, which will fuel the illegal black market, will the Minister tell the House how her Department will fill the black hole in funding for British sports, and say what impact assessment it has made on that and on job losses across the sector?
Stephanie Peacock
The Chancellor set out the Budget yesterday. We believe that we have made fair choices. The Minister responsible for gambling will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will relay it to her.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Strong evidence from the city of culture programme proves that supporting local culture pays both economic and social dividends for those areas and the wider public. The town of culture is a new competition to ensure that smaller places can share that real impact, by shining a spotlight on places and enabling them to tell their stories. The winner of the new town of culture competition will receive £3.5 million and, for the first time ever, as confirmed from the outset, the city of culture winner will receive £10 million. There has been much excitement about the new town of culture competition and I look forward to those bids coming in.
Andrew Cooper
Northwich and Winsford, in my constituency, have long punched well above their weight when it comes to cultural vibrancy and creativity. Winsford, in particular, has earned a proud reputation as an incubator for musical talent, with emerging acts, such The Luka State and The Voke, making waves on the national indie music scene. Meanwhile, Northwich has firmly established itself as the events capital of Cheshire, hosting standout occasions including the Now Northwich International Street Dance festival, The Charlatans’ North by Northwich takeover and, of course, the world-famous Piña Colada festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that Mid Cheshire makes an outstanding contribution to the UK’s cultural landscape, and will he consider supporting a joint bid from Northwich and Winsford for the town of culture competition?
Ian Murray
Mr Speaker, I would never presume to know your diary, but I feel as if we should go together to the Piña Colada festival, just to take one for the team and see what that is all about. Since I gave my answer to my hon. Friend’s substantive question, I have been lobbied by both Wigan and Scunthorpe for town of culture as I was sitting on the Front Bench. The culture and creativity celebrated by towns in Mid Cheshire is superb, as we have heard, and the examples my hon. Friend provided illustrate how the area is already showcasing local creativity and talent. We are thrilled that the UK town of culture competition will provide an excellent platform for towns like those, UK-wide, to highlight those causes, and we look forward to receiving bids from those towns, once the submission window opens shortly.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the innovation around the UK town of culture. My 10 seconds of fame as the Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in December 2017, when I went to Hull, the train broke down and I announced on “The One Show” that Coventry would be the UK city of culture. On behalf of Salisbury, which celebrates its 800th anniversary in 2027, may I ask if guidance can be given? Salisbury is a market town with a cathedral and we would love to apply, but given all our world-leading cultural assets we will need guidance about whether we qualify for the city or the town of culture.
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is probably exaggerating when he says he had 10 seconds of fame—
Ian Murray
I will meet him halfway and say seven and a half seconds. These are very exciting projects. As I said, I have already been lobbied by Wigan and Scunthorpe as I have been sitting on the Front Bench, and now I am being lobbied by Salisbury, so that shows the excitement around both the competitions. That is why we introduced the town of culture competition. I look forward to bids coming in and I am happy for officials to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the bid goes to the right competition.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
For too long, fans have been exploited by touts seeking to profiteer from the UK’s booming live events industry. Last week, we announced that time is up for ticket touts and that change is coming, by introducing a cap on the price that tickets can be resold for. We estimate that this will save fans over £100 million a year.
Richard Baker
This summer, thousands of music fans in Scotland were dismayed at having to pay hugely inflated prices to see their favourite bands, including Oasis, so my right hon. Friend’s announcement on capping the resale price of tickets will be welcome news for all those fans. Will she consider what further measures can be taken to ensure a fair deal on ticket prices for concert-goers across the UK?
Lisa Nandy
I can update my hon. Friend. Among the measures that we announced recently, we have introduced resale volume limits, which will prevent people from reselling more tickets than they were entitled to buy in the primary sale. Alongside the price cap, the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to fine non-compliant platforms up to 10% of their annual turnover, which could mean multimillion-pound fines for rogue firms if they target UK consumers.
In the case of Oasis, as many in this House will know, one of the great challenges was that many of the fans going into that queue did not know that the surge pricing model was being used, so they did not realise that they would paying vastly inflated prices by the time they got to the front of the queue. The CMA has looked at this and is taking steps to ensure that consumers have the full range of information that they need to prevent that from happening in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am aware of tickets for the Belsonic event at the Boucher Road playing fields in Belfast previously appearing on secondary sites at more than four times their original price within minutes of going on sale, so I welcome the news from the Secretary of State. What progress has been made on perhaps introducing a 5% to 10% cap on the resale of concert tickets?
Lisa Nandy
In terms of the resale of concert tickets, we have taken a decision after a long period of consultation to cap the resale at the original price. The hon. Gentleman mentions some examples, and there are others; just recently, I looked at some Radiohead tickets that were on sale originally for £100 and were being resold on one of these platforms for more than £1,000. That is an absolute rip-off for fans and has gone on in plain sight for far too long, which is why we have announced that tickets will be resold for the original price. Time is up for the ticket touts.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the House would imagine, I am having daily conversations with the BBC leadership on a number of issues, including charter renewal. I have been clear that we stand by the BBC to secure its role at the heart of national life for decades to come, but the forthcoming charter review will be a vital opportunity for us collectively to shape the BBC’s future and consider how it needs to change in this new era. In particular, for years our nations and regions have been underserved and under-represented by the concentration of power in just one part of the country when it comes to our television industry, and we are determined that the BBC will continue to lead the way on changing that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters. That is a disgrace, and we are determined that it will change.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The BBC removed a part of Rutger Bregman’s Reith lecture in which he alleged that Donald Trump was the most openly corrupt President in US history, doing so only after legal advice prompted by Mr Trump’s lawsuit against it. The threat of legal action is creating a dangerous precedent for media censure. If the national broadcaster cannot air robust and defensible claims even in a series of lectures designed to spark debate on contemporary issues, what hope is there for any part of our free press effectively to challenge power? We know that the Prime Minister has spoken directly with Mr Trump since the lawsuit was filed, so can the Secretary of State confirm whether the PM raised the issue of the BBC and insisted that Trump drop his ridiculous lawsuit?
Lisa Nandy
I became aware of the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises last night, and I will discuss it with the BBC chairman at our next meeting on Monday. Obviously it is absolutely essential that our broadcasters can broadcast a full range of voices without fear or favour, whether it is pressure from Governments of any political persuasion in the UK or from Governments overseas. This Government will always fiercely defend that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the Secretary of State responsible for the gambling industry, I have obviously been working closely with the Chancellor to ensure that the measures she announced yesterday protect people who gather great joy from an industry that is worth huge amounts to the UK economy and enjoyed by millions. In particular, the measures are to protect bingo halls, dog tracks, racing tracks, pubs and coastal communities. The measures we announced yesterday will start to make a significant dent in the numbers of children living in poverty—a legacy disgracefully left by the last Government—but the hon. Gentleman can be confident that we have made fairer choices to ensure that we protect things that millions of people in this country enjoy.
Charlie Dewhirst
The Chancellor’s announcements in yesterday’s Budget in relation to gambling duty could cost the industry up to 16,000 jobs, largely in the high- tech part of that industry, and move £6 billion of gambling stakes into the black market. I know that the Secretary of State is a very reasonable individual—she would make an excellent future leader of her party—so does she agree that taxing something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and that this will move problem gamblers into a less regulated, illegal space?
Lisa Nandy
The Minister for gambling, my hon. Friend Baroness Twycross, and I have obviously looked at this issue as part of the work we have been doing in the run-up to the Budget, and I am sure she would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Gentleman. We have sought to limit the economic impact of this decision on the high street and focus the tax rises on parts of the gambling industry that have lower operating costs. For precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman has outlined, we have also brought forward measures in the Budget to permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail and hospitality properties, which we think will help mitigate some of the impact on betting shops. We are aware of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but Governments cannot duck choices, and our choice is to lift 450,000 children out of poverty to make a dent in the figure of 4.5 million left by the previous Government.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Chancellor on making the decision to tax online gambling in particular. The fact that people effectively have a casino in their pocket destroys lives and families, and it is right that we send that strong signal, as well as make sure money is available to tackle the insidious moral scar of child poverty that was left by the previous Government. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how we will ensure that the way we conduct gambling in this country provides better protection to those families and individuals who end up being exposed to some of the most insidious practices of the gambling industry?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend that child poverty is a moral scar on the soul of this nation. Where we differ slightly is that for me and our Government, this is not about sending a signal to the gambling industry. It is simply about making the right choices—the fairest choices—in order to reverse some of the damage done by the last Government. Gambling is enjoyed by millions of people in this country without harm, but it does cause significant harm for a minority. We introduced the gambling levy to ensure that we can invest in prevention and support for those affected, and we have allocated an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years, to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. As the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has raised and as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the illegal market is where an unregulated industry can cause serious harm, and we are determined to tackle it.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Mr Speaker, this Labour Government are committed to delivering for communities in every part of our United Kingdom. That is why we have launched the town of culture competition, to celebrate the people, heritage and creativity of the towns that enrich our national story. I encourage every town—even Chorley—to apply, and urge Members across the House to keep an eye out for the applications, which will be opening soon.
We have also launched Euro 2028, bringing global audiences and economic opportunity to cities across the UK and Ireland, and we are acting to protect fans everywhere by cracking down on ticket touts. Finally, I congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the world cup for the first time in 28 years.
Mr Charters
Away tickets cost £45 at championship Coventry and £30 at league one Mansfield Town. Even some national league games are getting close to £30 for York City fans, when premiership clubs Arsenal, Liverpool and United all have a £30 cap. Does the Secretary of State support extending an away ticket cap across all leagues as a ceiling, not a target?
Lisa Nandy
“Or watch rugby league”, says Mr Speaker. Football is nothing without the fans, and my hon. Friend is right to say that it must be affordable for people across the country. The Premier League has shown enormous leadership through the £30 away cap—that is an excellent example of that principle. This is precisely why this Government wasted no time in passing the Football Governance Act 2025 with the permission of both Houses, which implements minimum engagement standards, including requiring clubs to consult fans on ticket prices.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland?
At Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions in September, the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that the Government have “no plans” to bring in a tourism tax and admitted that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”, yet this week the Government announced that they are bringing in a tourism tax. When did they start planning for this tax? Was any form of impact assessment carried out before they decided that whacking up taxes on a sector that has already lost 90,000 jobs because of increases in last year’s Budget is such a great idea?
Lisa Nandy
I think the hon. Gentleman united us all, wishing a happy Lancashire Day, but perhaps that was the beginning and end of the cross-party unity. I am enormously proud that this Government have finally acted on the calls from mayors across the political spectrum—including one Boris Johnson in 2013 when he was the Mayor of London—to implement a visitor levy on short-term overnight accommodation. We have not just done that: we have handed the power to regions themselves to implement it. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the burden on industry. He will know full well that the levy will be paid by visitors, not by the tourism industry. It surely cannot be right that England is the only country in the G7 where a national Government prevent their local authorities and mayors from implementing tourist levies.
Nigel Huddleston
I am afraid I disagree. For a second time, DCMS sectors are left reeling following a Labour Budget that failed to deliver meaningful support on business rates for hospitality and leisure. The Government introduced a new tax on tourism and whacked up taxes on the gambling industry. Instead of being supported, DCMS sectors just got hammered. Who is to blame for this disastrous Budget for DCMS sectors? Is it DCMS Ministers for failing to make the case, or the Treasury for not listening?
Lisa Nandy
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but with respect, he is talking absolute nonsense. This Government inherited a situation where there had been no strategy for this country’s young people for nearly two decades, where the arts had been underfunded, where capital projects had not been gripped and where sports were left languishing while demand soared. We have turned that around, with the new covenant with civil society to extend that partnership to every part of the country, a new national youth strategy, and funding for arts everywhere, not just in some parts of the country. I am proud of the Budget, especially as it introduces a visitor levy that will raise millions of pounds in parts of the country that were underserved by the last Conservative Government for far too long.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I highly commend the festival in Huddersfield. As an Edinburgh MP who is always championing festivals, the more music festivals and other arts festivals we have across the country, the better. I encourage everyone to go.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
Yes, of course, and in fact we already are. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have convened a series of roundtables, and we are not just talking to big tech companies, but a full range of tech companies, hearing a range of views. For the first time, we are bringing together creators and tech companies. Many of them, as the right hon. Gentleman alludes to, are starting to create their own deals, which we encourage. We do not believe that that negates the need for licensing or the transparency in the legislation that we promised here and in the other place, but I am happy to continue that conversation with them and with him.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
This Government know that football reaches people like nothing else, and in the summer of 2028 it will bring people together across the whole of the UK. I was pleased to chair a meeting of sport Ministers a few weeks ago to discuss the tournament and its legacy. Glasgow is of course due to host five matches at the tournament, which will bring significant benefits.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
Obviously I speak regularly to the Energy Secretary, and I am happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman should know that I share my right hon. Friend’s commitment to turning this country into a clean energy powerhouse and ensuring that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine receive the benefits in the form of lower bills and better energy security.
The point of the visitor levy is that it gives powers to local areas to raise their own funds and decide how they are spent. I would have thought that everybody in this House should be able to support that.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government are committed to ensuring that short-term lets actively benefit our local communities, and we will implement a short-term lets registration scheme in England in 2026. I know that this issue is of significant interest to Members from across the House, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Isle of Wight Youth Trust is set to lose £200,000-worth of funding by the end of the financial year. Early support hubs will lose funding across the country, and up to half the 24 surveyed said that they may close services. Will the Secretary of State speak to cross-departmental colleagues to ensure that bridge funding is put in place, so that no young person loses out?
Lisa Nandy
Our forthcoming national youth strategy will meet our pledge to ensure that there is no reduction in youth funding and that every pound is spent better, with a particular focus on rebuilding those places and spaces that have been allowed to fall into disrepair or have been lost. On the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I appreciate that it is urgent. I am happy to take it away with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and to ensure that we get the hon. Gentleman a proper reply.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
I can hear from those on the other side of the House that a lot of hon. Members feel very strongly about this issue, and they have made representations on it over a long period of time. My hon. Friend will know that new measures are coming into force in June to address SLAPPs in relation to cases of economic crime. That was started under the previous Government and has continued under this one. It is my belief that we should take sexual harassment and abuse every bit as seriously as economic crime, and this is an area where action is long overdue. I am happy to work with the media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to achieve that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Sorry, folks, but we have run out of time. We really do need an hour for Culture, Media and Sport questions, and I know the Secretary of State agrees with me. It would be much more wonderful.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The Commission has taken steps to widen access to schools in terms of both volume and geographic spread, and these changes have led to an increase in the number of schoolchildren able to visit. More than 71,000 are expected to visit this year—an increase of over 20% since 2022—and we expect the numbers to be even higher next year. In 2023, the Commission approved a change to the travel subsidy programme to increase direct funding for schools that are furthest from Westminster, and improvements to the bookings process for schools were also implemented. The Administration Committee recently agreed further proposed improvements to the travel subsidy scheme, and these will shortly be considered by the Commission.
Peter Prinsley
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. During a recent visit to the Westgate community primary school in Bury St Edmunds, I was asked by a very bright eight-year-old whether Parliament could pass a law to make it snow more often. I was very struck by this suggestion, which was in some ways much more realistic than the proposals made by certain Members of this House. Does my hon. Friend agree that meaningful engagement between Parliament and our children is essential to safeguard our democracy?
Nick Smith
My constituency of Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney is 1,200 feet above sea level and we get snow a lot, so “Just be careful what you ask for” might have been good advice to that lovely eight-year-old. Of course, we need to improve access to this place. Fairer access to Parliament is a good cause, and our education department does good work in this sphere, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to make further inquiries, I am very happy to help him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important that all children of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland get an opportunity to come here, because it broadens their horizons and gives them an idea of how decisions are made here. However, children from Northern Ireland cannot just jump on a coach or a train; they have to go by plane, which costs more. I know that the House makes moneys available to help children come here, but obviously booking a plane for 10, 20 or even 30 children may just be uneconomical. What more can be done to make sure that children from Northern Ireland have the same opportunity as those who live here?
Nick Smith
The new education booking system is being devised to help with regional equity. The hon. Member has hit on a really important question about transport access to this place, as well as about places to stay overnight. I will look into that further and get back to him.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
I am sorry that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), is unwell; we wish her a swift recovery. She will be listening, and if my answers fall short, I am sure that she will follow up on them with Members.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the Measure is still with the Ecclesiastical Committee—he is a member of it—which is still to update the Church on its decision about the Measure. The national Church institutions have worked closely with the Charity Commission on the draft Measure, and have considered its comments carefully, particularly on the objects of the proposed new charity, Church of England National Services. The commission took a different view from the Church on the remuneration of the chair of CENS. However, amendments were made to the Measure in response to the commission’s concerns, to ensure that the power to remunerate a chair is exercised only when trustees believe it is necessary to do so, considering all relevant factors.
Danny Kruger
That was a very helpful answer, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for it. The fact is, however, that the proposed new governance Measure that the Church is bringing forward substantially alters the charitable objects of the Church Commissioners, which is a body set up by this House to regulate the income of the Church. As he has explained, the Charity Commission differs with the Church Commissioners and the Church hierarchy on the proposed new body. My question is: to what extent does the Second Church Estates Commissioner regard it as necessary to secure the approval of the Charity Commission when Parliament is establishing a body that will have the power to alter its own constitution? A very substantial change is being introduced, and I want to know whether the Charity Commission has approved that, and whether the Church Commissioners think that it should approve that.
Sir Alan Campbell
It is unusual to be accused of giving helpful answers, but I will take that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the answer I gave before, which is that the national Church institutions have worked closely with the Charity Commission on the draft Measure and have considered its comments carefully. However, I will take away his comments and draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
I am pleased to report that the House of Commons Commission agreed in October to seek accreditation from the White Ribbon campaign. The campaign does important work to prevent violence against women and girls by promoting equality, building networks and challenging harmful attitudes and behaviour. The accreditation process involves creating an action plan and policies to provide support relating to domestic abuse. Guidance and resources are available on the parliamentary intranet.
Sonia Kumar
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. In the past year, nearly 4 million people in the UK have been victims of some sort of domestic violence. This is a national crisis. In light of that, will my hon. Friend and the Commission he serves consider taking steps to improve the messaging for MPs’ staff around domestic violence and abuse, and share details of available training? Will he agree to encourage MPs to endorse the new House of Commons policy on domestic abuse in full, which I have been helping to shape with House staff?
Nick Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I am happy to help with her key point about messaging. Members, as employers, could implement a domestic abuse policy. To help with this, the Members’ human resources advice service has specific guidance and templates available for Members, and can support them with implementation.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The House of Bishops has a special role in matters relating to doctrine, liturgy and sacrament, and the right to amend legislation before it is put before the General Synod for approval. There is no need for a two-thirds majority in order to progress all the requirements of “Living in Love and Faith”. The requirement for a two-thirds majority applies only when introducing permanent new services into the Church of England’s liturgy.
Steve Race
I thank the Leader of the House for that answer. I wonder whether the Second Church Estates Commissioner might make it clear to the House of Bishops and the new Archbishop of Canterbury, whom I welcome, that the Church of England is accountable to Parliament, and that going backwards on very modest moves to end discrimination against same-sex lay and clergy couples is unacceptable and not a sustainable position if the Church wishes to continue to enjoy the privileges of its established status.
Sir Alan Campbell
I will convey my hon. Friend’s views to the House of Bishops and to the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Sir Alan Campbell
The Church of England remains committed to ministry in all communities across the country, but the deployment of clergy is a responsibility for local diocesan bishops and their leadership teams. The national Church institutions have increased the money available to all dioceses for clergy training by 30% in the next spending period.
Charlie Dewhirst
I thank the Leader of the House for that answer, and please can he pass my best wishes on to the Second Church Estates Commissioner? In my area, 26 churches are covered by just five priests, and only three of those priests are paid, so I hope that the Leader of the House will join me in thanking all the regular churchgoers who do so much to ensure the maintenance and upkeep of the beautiful churches right across East Yorkshire. Will he do everything he can to ensure that the Church of England attracts more priests into the fold?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s best wishes to the Second Church Estates Commissioner. The position he describes is, I think, not unusual across the country. I certainly join him in thanking regular churchgoers for everything they do for the upkeep of their churches. I will convey his comments to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and I am sure that she will write to him as soon as possible.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Sir Alan Campbell
The Archbishop of York visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories earlier this month. He met Palestinian families on the west bank and addressed the congregation at St Andrew’s church in Ramallah. He also visited villages and highlighted the way that settlers are, in the Archbishop’s own words, “squeezing out” Palestinians.
James Asser
There is growing concern about settler violence on the west bank. Churches in my constituency have raised that concern, and have particularly highlighted the attacks on the Christian community, which is, in their words, small and often overlooked. May I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner, via the Leader of the House, to use the role of the Church Commissioners to ensure that this issue stays on the agenda and in the public eye, so that this community and what is happening to it is not forgotten, either in Parliament or in the wider world?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will do that. The Archbishop’s delegation also visited the west bank, where he met Christian Palestinian families affected by settler violence and faced a tense stand-off with armed settlers before being ordered to leave by the Israeli police. We must not lose sight of Gaza and the west bank. The ceasefire is not peace. Land disputes are rising in frequency. Ancient olive groves are being uprooted, and in Gaza food, fuel, medicine and aid remain critically short. The Archbishop commented on his return:
“They do feel let down and forgotten by the rest of the world, and, as Palestinian Christians, by the churches of the world, that here in the land of the Holy One, those who follow him are being squeezed out of existence and forced from their homes. I promised those women I would tell their story and enable their voices to be heard.”
I thank my hon. Friend for making sure that those voices are being heard today.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Leader of the House has just said. The fact is, the pressure by illegal settlers on Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem and the west bank is absolutely appalling, particularly in Taybeh, the last Christian town on the west bank. I have been to the west bank and have seen for myself what is going on. The pressure on the Armenians in Jerusalem and the raising of the issue of the church property tax by the Mayor of Jerusalem —this has to stop. The whole country and the Church—all the Churches—must speak out and say that Palestinian Christians and Muslims have a right to live in peace, justice and security in their homeland.
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are doing everything they can to ensure religious freedom, wherever it happens to be under threat in the world. We need a just peace in this region—not just in Gaza and the west bank, but across the region—and part of living in peace is respecting other people’s faiths.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
A new approach to proactively understand Members’ needs has been introduced by the Parliamentary Digital Service to shape improvements to digital services. Recently, its research informed a trial of a paid version of Copilot artificial intelligence with Members, including me, and with staff. To ensure that any new solutions meet Members’ needs, PDS runs pilots, works with suppliers and applies Member feedback to try to drive improvements.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. My constituents expect me to spend their money and my time addressing their issues, not trying to manage an inbox flooded with lobbyist spam and by Russian and Chinese bots. Microsoft Copilot asks me if I want help writing emails to my constituents—I do not—but will not help me manage my inbox, despite repeated requests. Can my hon. Friend say whether this House is paying more money for Copilot functionality that we are not using, and if and when Microsoft Copilot will address the issues that I and other MPs face, rather than the ones that Microsoft thinks we should have?
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend has a fair beef. The volume of unwanted emails received by MPs is a known problem, but no one yet has an easy solution. Testing of whether Copilot or other digital solutions can help with inbox management has taken place, but Copilot is unlikely to be the answer for it. I understand that the technology may now exist, though, and I will ask the Parliamentary Digital Service to brief her on what might be possible.
Nick Smith
In terms of paying more for Microsoft Copilot, there is a version that does come at a monthly cost.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The national Church institutions have held a national consultation to inform a new vocation strategy, and the House of Bishops has emphasised the importance of increasing the number of candidates entering training for ministry. Further work will take place this week at the biennial diocesan directors of ordinands conference.
Martin Vickers
As a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, I never cease to be amazed by the number of officials who turn up to every meeting. Could the Leader of the House convey to the Second Church Estates Commissioner that perhaps slimming down Church bureaucracy would allow more resources to be available for the ministry?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly do that. I will ask my hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Sir Alan Campbell
The Church of England has committed to net zero carbon by 2030, and is actively supporting solar installations on churches and cathedrals to make the buildings more efficient to run, and to lower operating costs. Through its net zero carbon programme, the Church has allocated £30 million for the years 2023 to ’25, and a total of £190 million over nine years for energy efficiency and renewables projects.
Siân Berry
Brighton and Hove has excellent energy co-ops and many church roofs, so what is the Church doing to bring together clergy, congregations and co-ops to make more solar projects viable? Can the commissioners reduce planning risks for listed churches by adding more weight, perhaps through guidance or strategies, to their visible leadership role in communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Lady’s local churches, which are leading the way for others to follow. St Bartholomew’s church in Brighton is just one example of what can be done with a listed building to reduce long-term running costs via the installation of modern heating and lighting. Grants are available for solar panels via diocesan schemes alongside technical support and match funding initiatives. The main obstacle to faster installation is civil planning authorities that see their role as protecting the look and feel of a building, rather than ensuring that the building can pay for itself. I will draw the hon. Lady’s comments to the attention of the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who will, I am sure, give them consideration and write back.
Right to Trial by Jury
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the Government’s reported plans to further restrict the right to trial by jury in almost all cases.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with record and rising caseloads, leaving the victims behind each and every one of those cases facing agonising delays and waiting to see justice done, while some defendants hope that their accusers simply give up on justice.
That is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson, a pre-eminent jurist and one of our most experienced judges, to undertake an independent review—a once-in-a-generation review—of our criminal courts. We have been carefully considering his recommendations and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action to get the system moving and to deliver swifter justice for victims. No final decisions have been made on exactly how to take forward the blueprint that Sir Brian and his expert panel have set down, and I suggest that the House waits for that response.
Let me be clear: jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice. This Government will do whatever it takes to protect the fundamental right to a fair trial. The Great British justice system, with all its traditions, would never let victims wait, in some cases for four years, for justice. There is indeed a clash of ideas between those of us on the Government Benches and the Opposition. We are on the side of modernisation, defending our values, and swifter justice for victims, while they are prepared to watch the system rot, not offering any answers. The old adage rings true in the current crisis: justice delayed is justice denied. The system was simply not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims are facing agonising delays for justice.
The vast majority of cases in our courts are already heard without juries. Around 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with robustly and fairly by magistrates, with no jury. The country deserves meaningful reforms that back victims, modernisation and fairness over those gaming the system, and that speed up the courts and get victims the swifter justice that they deserve, resolving the court backlog and ensuring fair justice. As I have said, we intend to respond to the first part of Sir Brian’s review very soon, so I am afraid the House will have to wait a little longer for that response.
Robert Jenrick
While this Government lurch from one outrage to another, yesterday the Chancellor shredded her promises and dropped a £26 billion tax bomb on working Britain. Meanwhile, we learned that the Justice Secretary is plotting to discard centuries of jury trials without so much as a by-your-leave—and where is the Justice Secretary to answer for this? Do we need to send out a search party to Saville Row in case he has gone suit shopping again this morning? Or perhaps he could not face up to the embarrassment that he is now destroying the very principles he once championed.
Jury trials are
“fundamental to the justice system…fundamental to our democracy. We must protect them.”
Those are not my words, but those of the Justice Secretary himself. This time, he was right: there is wisdom in 12 ordinary citizens pooling their collective experiences of the world. Yet, now that he is in government, he is doing the complete opposite. He blames the court backlog, but if the courtrooms standing empty this year were used, the backlog would be down by 5,000 to 10,000 cases. He pleads poverty on law and order, but yesterday the Chancellor came here and found £16 billion more to spend on benefits.
The truth is that the Labour party just does not think that ordinary people are up to it. It does not trust them with these decisions. Give away the Chagos islands, shackle us to the European convention on human rights, scrap jury trials—all because lawyers know best. And when the Justice Secretary is summoned here to the people’s House, what does he do? He cowers away. Well, the people who make up juries—the British people—will not wear it any more.
I have one simple question for the Minister he sent in his stead. Will she protect what is fundamental to our democracy, or will she stand by as the Justice Secretary casually casts aside centuries of English liberty?
Sarah Sackman
How extraordinary, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman claims to care about the rule of law; he claims to care about ancient legal traditions. This is the same shadow Justice Secretary who denigrates our independent judges and our legal community standing up for rights. I have already said it, and I will say it again: the right to a jury trial for our most serious cases will remain a fundamental part of our British legal tradition.
Since he is so fond of quoting our ancient principles and quoting Magna Carta, let me remind him of what is our constitutional right. Magna Carta states:
“to no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness. When we have the crisis we inherited from the Conservative party, with a backlog now of some 80,000 cases—and behind each and every one of those cases is an actual victim and somebody accused of a crime—in the current system, we are denying a fair trial. When victims and witnesses pull out of the process, as is increasingly happening, that denies fairness.
I say this while wearing this pin, which shows that we stand in 16 days of activism against violence against women and girls: a woman reporting a rape today in London will be told that her trial may not come on until 2029-30. That is not justice at all, and it is a consequence of allowing the Crown court backlog to spiral out of control while doing nothing and offering not a single answer. That is not upholding the fundamental British constitutional right to a fair trial; it is exactly the opposite.
I for one, certainly, and as part of this Government, am not prepared to sit idly by. That is why we have gripped the crisis, making record investment in sitting days, extending magistrates court sentencing powers, investing in legal aid and asking one of our finest jurists, Brian Leveson, to conduct an independent review to provide us with a blueprint for how we get out of this mess. The Conservative party likes to call itself the party of tradition and the party of law and order, yet it presided over a justice system in which the British public can no longer have confidence.
I am afraid that I am not prepared to let victims down. This Labour Government are finally putting victims first. That is why we will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations. It is why we will undertake to implement his blueprint, which takes as its fundamental premise this: the system is broken. There is no one in this House, no one in the community that represents victims and no one in the legal community—no judge, no one operating and working hard in the system to keep it going—who thinks that the system is not broken. We have to fix it.
Sir Brian Leveson tells us that investment alone will not fix it. We need investment coupled with structural reform and modernisation. That is exactly the blueprint that this Government will bring forward, because, as I said, we believe in the right to a fair trial, we believe in British justice and, unlike the Conservative party, we will deliver swifter justice for victims.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister is right that we cannot go on as we are with 80,000-plus cases in the backlog and growing, and four-year delays in serious cases. She is also right that there is nothing sacred about jury trial for any particular level of offence. But if the Lord Chancellor is thinking of going beyond Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, he will need to produce some clear evidence as to why that is necessary and why that does not offend our system of justice, of which we are all still very proud. That is not only about more serious offences; if the leak is to be believed, it is also about extending magistrate courts’ powers beyond the 12 months, which they have only just gone up to, and a massive extension of judge-only trials. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer all those questions today, but when will we hear those answers and get the response to Sir Brian’s report?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, of course, I will not be commenting on a leaked document. No final decisions have been taken. What I can say is that we are giving very careful consideration to Sir Brian’s blueprint. We are giving very serious consideration to his conclusion that the current system, as my hon. Friend says, is broken and that we need structural reform. That requires that we countenance the idea of judge-only trials and a thorough review of what magistrate courts’ sentencing powers should be. It also requires that we ask the question that Sir Brian invites us to answer: when is it proportionate to have a jury trial, with all the rigour but also with all the expense and delay that can entail? Is it right that we ask somebody accused of stealing a bottle of whisky to be ahead in the queue of the rape victim waiting for her jury trial? That is the question he poses, and that is the question that when we come forward with our detailed plans, which need to be considered as a whole, it will be necessary for this House to consider.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The leaked memo from the Ministry of Justice, which reveals plans to rip up our criminal justice system, is particularly surprising, given that the Deputy Prime Minister himself has stated that “Jury trials are fundamental”. In a report that he wrote, he called jury trials
“a success story of our justice system”.
Juries are not the cause of the court backlog; that was complacency from the former Government and a failure to grip the issue by this Government, totally failing the victims who are currently waiting. Will the Minister clarify whether this MOJ proposal is a suggested temporary emergency measure or a permanent erosion of our criminal justice system? Does she share my concern that the Office for Budget Responsibility is showing a real-terms cut of 3% a year to the MOJ’s capital budget after the Budget yesterday? Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s diagnosis from opposition that the Government should
“pull their finger out and acquire empty public buildings across the country”
in order to clear the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member heard me say a moment ago, the constitutional right that we guarantee every citizen in this country who comes before our criminal courts is the right to a fair trial. When victims are waiting for years for their day in court, right now justice is not being served. When the Secretary of State made those comments, it was obviously in a very different context, not one where the Conservatives had allowed the backlogs to run out of control. As I said clearly earlier, the right to a jury trial and the jury trial will always be a cornerstone of the British justice system. That will not change. It does not change in Sir Brian’s report, in which he recommends the restriction of jury trials in certain cases, and it will not change in the plans that the Government are bringing out. She is right that we need a combination of structural reform and investment and, indeed, we are making that investment. We have increased capital investment in court maintenance and buildings to £148.5 million. We are opening new criminal courts, for example in central London, in Blackpool and in other parts of the country. We have to build system capacity, with more judges, more lawyers and more staff to man those cases, but ultimately we must be laser-focused on the need to deliver swifter justice for victims. In order to do that, we will, in due course, in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations, bring forward very careful plans that protect people’s rights, including that right to a fair trial.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
After 14 years of the previous Government, many in Oldham feel that justice has left town. Our county court closed, our magistrates court closed, and police station after police station closed as well. Today, in a town of a quarter of a million people, not a single custody cell is in operation. We are looking to address that with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, bringing forward plans for a new police station with custody cells. But ideally we want a justice centre with courts brought back to Oldham so that magistrates can take the bench in the town and justice can be served and be seen to be served.
Sarah Sackman
What my hon. Friend described, in graphic detail—the way in which justice has visibly eroded in his town—is the result of 14 years of Conservative failure, austerity and fundamental neglect of our justice system. What we are doing in so many areas is rebuilding and restoring the confidence that the British public can have in our justice system.
We inherited two crises. First, we inherited a prison system running red hot. How irresponsible of the so-called party of law and order to allow prisons to be full so that dangerous criminals would not have a prison place. Secondly—perhaps this is less visible, but it is no less serious—we inherited a crisis in our criminal justice system and in our courts, where victims are waiting longer and longer for justice. As my hon. Friend said, our constituents deserve to see visible justice. They deserve to see that when they report a crime, it does not take years for it to come to trial, but that it happens swiftly—within months—so that people can see the consequences of their actions. That, by the way, also reduces recidivism. That is why will do whatever it takes to bring down the backlog.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I served as a young barrister in criminal courts, and I have served on a jury, and I can say that I was deeply impressed by the care that people on the jury, from all walks of life, took to consider the evidence—actually, they were better than the barristers in many ways.
I can understand where the Minister is coming from, but covid was a one-off event. I say to hon. Members that if someone of previous good character is accused of what might seem to be a minor crime such as shop- lifting, having wandered out of a shop—years ago, one of our colleagues was accused of shoplifting—their whole career and whole reputation could be destroyed. Surely the Minister must accept that a person of previous good character must have a right to jury trial. This is 1,000 years of history and the greatest defence against totalitarianism. We must never throw it away. We should consider that carefully before we proceed.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. To use a Latin quip that barristers are fond of, we are ad idem. I agree with jury trials; they bring something of deep value to our legal tradition. That is why, as I have said, they will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious crimes, but we need to have an air of realism about the context. Currently, 90% of cases are dealt with quite properly, quite fairly and quite robustly without a jury trial. That is the norm. We do not have jury trials in our civil system. Again, that is the norm. In reality, only 3% of cases are heard by a jury. The question is about proportionality.
Where we have the sorts of offences that the right hon. Member referred to, we need to treat all defendants—anybody accused of a crime—equally. We must ensure that we address the crisis we have today, where those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes are waiting years for justice. We have got to do what it takes, and part of that, as Sir Brian Leveson contends, is about the need for proportionate use of one of our most precious commodities, which is our jury trial. I agree that it is a good thing, and we need to use it and preserve it for the most serious cases.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not extraordinary that the Conservative party is still pretending to be the party of law and order, despite being the party that slashed police numbers, hollowed out our criminal justice system and failed victims time and again? In the years prior to covid, the Conservatives artificially capped sitting days, with allocations declining from 109,000 in 2015-16 to a record low of 83,150 in 2019-20, the year leading up to the pandemic. Is it not the case that that reckless decision led to a growing court backlog even before covid struck?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right. We inherited record and rising backlogs. Covid was a contributing factor, but it was not the only factor. Years of under-investment and years of neglect have contributed to the delay, as well as the demand in the system, which, by the way, continues to increase partly because our police are making more arrests and there are more charging decisions. That is not a bad thing, but the system is simply buckling under the weight of that demand. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not prepared to sit idly by. As I said, behind each and every one of those roughly 80,000 cases sitting in our backlog is a victim, or somebody accused who is trying to clear their name, living under a cloud with their lives on hold—psychological torture. Ultimately, justice is not being served, so we must do whatever it takes to get the backlog down.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The crisis in our criminal justice system is not caused by jury trials but by inefficiencies in the system and a lack of advocates able to prosecute and defend trials, according to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association. When will the Government engage with them, rather than relying solely on Sir Brian’s report, in order to maintain the cornerstone of our justice system—the jury trial—while improving inefficiencies in the criminal justice system?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member will know that I regularly engage with the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and a range of other stakeholders. In fact, they agree with me that the system is broken. Indeed, whether they prosecute or defend, hard-working criminal barristers are experiencing a sapping of morale as they go into the crumbling buildings—presided over by the Conservatives—inefficient trials that crack, and trials that come three or four years after they were reported, with witnesses pulling out on the day. All that is deeply demoralising. Indeed, there is a huge degree of consensus between the Government and the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association on the direction of travel. We must of course address inefficiencies; that is why Sir Brian Leveson and his independent reviewers are considering inefficiencies and productivity in the system. When part two of the review comes, we will take its recommendations equally seriously and look to implement them.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2014, 8% of those on trial for an either-way offence opted for a jury trial. By 2022, that figure had more than doubled to 17%. At the same time, we know that the Crown court backlog is growing, that there are delays in those cases going to trial, and that more people are therefore dropping out and being denied their justice and their day in court. Is it not clear that some people are gaming the system to deny victims justice?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last week, I visited Wood Green Crown court, which has some of the deepest backlogs in the country, and met judges and barristers. They said that it was not uncommon to watch career criminals opt for a jury trial—their matter could be heard in the magistrates court, which has sufficient sentencing powers—and literally laugh in the dock. Why? Because they know that this Christmas and the one after that they will still be with their families without having faced trial, in the hope that witnesses pull out, the trial cracks and justice is not served. There are people gaming the system. That is the consequence of the delays, and we must do whatever we can to fix it.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Another day, another leak from the Government. The Minister says that no final decision has been made—we just have speculation—and suggests that we wait, so why does she not use this time to reflect on the comments from Conservative Members and bring back the courts used during covid, to speed up the process so that people continue to have the right to a trial by jury?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady is right that we need to increase capacity. That is why, since we replaced her party in government, we have increased the number of sitting days by over 5,000—we have record sitting days. The fact is, however, that we must build system capacity; we need enough judges, enough prosecutors, enough court ushers, enough court translators. We need more magistrates, and we are embarking on an ambitious programme to recruit more of them. All that must happen. Unlike her party, we are investing in the system and looking to bring more courtrooms back into use, but ultimately, as Sir Brian Leveson reminds us time and again, spending our way out of trouble will not, on its own, fix the system. Former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk —one of the Conservatives’ own—said that the system would become “irrecoverable” unless we act, and, unlike the Conservatives, I am prepared to do so.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The 2017 Lammy review found jury trials to be the only part of the justice system consistently free from racial bias. With only 12% of judges being from ethnic minority backgrounds, these proposals risk deepening disproportionality and undermining confidence in the justice system. Can the Minister explain how the public and ethnic minorities can have trust in this new Crown court division, when there is no evidence that it will even work to address the backlog?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the racial disparities right across our criminal justice system. Sadly, there is nothing new about that issue, which runs from issues with policing to prosecutorial practices, and of course, our courts are not entirely free of that. The principle of equality before the law is fundamental to public confidence in our justice system, and any differential treatment on the grounds of race or ethnicity is unacceptable. Regardless of which options we take forward to tackle the crisis, that principle—equality before the law—will run through them; I can assure her of that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Quod erat demonstrandum. Yesterday, it was made abundantly clear that the Government’s priority is the recipient of benefits, way ahead of any consideration of victims, was it not?
Sarah Sackman
I am not quite sure how to respond to that. Was it a question? Was it a statement? Was it a rant? It displays a serious lack of seriousness. We have a backlog of 80,000 cases, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. As I said, a victim of rape reporting her case in London today is told she has a trial in 2030. Does the right hon. Member think we should just sit back? Does he think that any responsible Government would take receipt of an independent review—detailed, carefully considered, evidence-based—and simply say, “We’ll just leave it on the shelf”? Forget it; we are going to respond to it, we are going to implement it, and we are going to act, because we care about one thing: swifter justice for victims. I am sorry he cannot say the same.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach, and therefore we need to get on with the job of reform?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is spot on. I met with a victim of child sexual abuse just the other day. He described to me the long wait for his very serious matter—[Interruption.] They laugh. I struggle, when I am talking about—
Sarah Sackman
So do I. I spoke to a victim of child sexual abuse who had waited years for his day in court. A couple of weeks before his trial date, he was given the devastating news that the trial had been adjourned for another year. I regret to say that he sought to take his own life upon hearing that. Luckily, his attempt did not work, but if we ever needed a more graphic illustration of the weight that these intolerable delays place on victims —on real people’s lives—that is it. That is why we have to do whatever it takes to bring down these backlogs.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Trial by jury is a fundamental principle of our justice system, engendering confidence among the British people. We all want to bring the backlogs down, but may I urge the Government to focus on the efficiencies, on technology and on additional investment? There is a fundamental point here: are the Minister and the Government aware that victims and the British people have more confidence in juries’ decisions than the decisions of judges?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to focus on efficiencies and the use of technology, which is why the Ministry of Justice is looking at greater use of artificial intelligence for transcription tools and case summarisation—that is all to help us bring down these delays. We have to give a guarantee to everyone in this country that if they come before our criminal courts, they will have a fair trial. As I have said, 90% of people who come before our criminal courts are currently tried without a jury, and that is done fairly and with integrity. I stand by the idea that what we have to do is offer people a fair trial. Waiting four years for a trial simply is not fair, so we have to get the balance right, but the hon. Gentleman is right that efficiency, investment and structural reform are what will get the backlog down.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s serious approach to dealing with this difficult issue. Like many other Members, my inbox is full of heartbreaking casework. Some of the most heartbreaking is from victims of crime who are anguished, hurt and deprived of justice because of delays in the system and because the system is broken. Most of those delays started under the last Government, so the Opposition have some brass neck to talk about a broken system. Can the Minister confirm that when she and the Government consider reforms, they will put those victims in my constituency first and seek to end the delays, and that the motto of our Government will be that a justice system broken is justice denied, and it is our job to fix it?
Sarah Sackman
I could not put it better myself. It is those victims that I have in mind every day when I come into work, flip open the virtual or real ministerial red box, and think about what we can do—what lever we can pull—to bring down the backlog. I will bear those victims’ stories in mind as we approach this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister is a very distinguished lawyer, so I am surprised to hear her selective interpretation of Magna Carta. She references clause 40 of Magna Carta and the timeliness of access to justice. I accept that, but I encourage her to reread clause 39, which underpins the fundamental rights of all of our constituents. Is this not just the continuation of Labour’s constitutional vandalism?
Sarah Sackman
Nothing could be further from the truth. The way in which I approach this question is about protecting people’s rights—the right to a fair trial. There is no right in our constitution to a jury trial—it is not there—but jury trials are a fundamental and important part of our legal tradition, and they will remain so after any reforms are brought forward. That simply does not change. However, 90% of people are tried without a jury, and that is done fairly. What we need to guarantee is a fair trial, and I have been mindful of our legal traditions, descending from Magna Carta and many constitutional documents since, as we approach these reforms.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I recently met the local Crown Prosecution Service in Exeter, which informed me that, as has been discussed, defendants who have the choice often choose a jury trial to delay their case and game the system. Because of that, 10% of adult rape cases are stopped after a defendant has been charged, as the victim no longer supports prosecution due to the long delays in their case. With the backlog at 78,000 and rising, victims are waiting years. Does the Minister agree that we need this bold action to get the court system back on its feet?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rape and serious sexual offences are one of the most poignant and difficult areas, and it is in our minds in these 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Rape Crisis published a report last week in which it reported that one in three rape victims faced delay to their trial. I am told that 60% of rape victims are pulling out of the process because they simply cannot live with the spectre of the trial hanging over them, and they doubt that justice will ever be done. What is the consequence of that? It is not just heartbreaking for the victim; it means that justice is not served. That is something that no one in this House can abide.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
With the Government’s attitude to migrants now expanding the political space for the racist far right, is the Minister not concerned that building a toolkit for authoritarians out of digital ID, police facial recognition, and now cutting jury trials for all charges that might be associated with dissent, is incredibly dangerous and something that we would not expect of a Labour Government, which should be protecting our rights instead?
Sarah Sackman
I am afraid that I utterly reject the premise of that question. First, the hon. Lady will have to wait, as will other Members, for the Government’s detailed response to Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations and to see which cases will be affected by the reforms. I utterly reject the suggestion that this is somehow an authoritarian gambit—far from it. I cannot think of anything more progressive than doing what it takes to salvage the British justice system and guarantee fair trial, which is currently being undermined as a result of under-investment by the last Government and by the backlogs. I am ensuring that we work towards guaranteeing a fair trial for every victim of crime in this country, and I cannot think of anything fairer and more progressive than that.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Are the Government concerned that the judiciary tend to be privately educated and white, which is very different from the composition of juries and not representative of the modern-day United Kingdom?
Sarah Sackman
Our judiciary are one of the prides of this country, and their independence and integrity provide one of the pillars of the rule of law in this country. That does not mean that they always get it right or that they are beyond reproach, but they are all subject to the principle of acting without fear or favour. They undergo comprehensive judicial training, which rightly includes rigorous training in bias, including racial bias. In our magistracy, which is so reflective of the principles of local and democratic justice, we are moving towards a more diverse magistracy, so that in London, one of our most diverse cities, over 30% of magistrates are currently black, Asian or minority ethnic. We need to go further, but I assure my hon. Friend that whether it is our judges, our magistracy or the involvement of juries for our most serious cases, that democratic element will always be retained.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister rightly calls out the issues for rape victims, and she might want to have a word with her friend the Mayor of London, who is closing down police stations so that there is nowhere for people to report. I recently visited Harrow Crown court, which is temporarily placed in Hendon magistrates court while the building in Harrow is rebuilt. I asked the judge, “Why are the courts all empty?”, as only one court was operational. He said to me, “The biggest problem is finding lawyers for defendants to enable the trials to take place.” While the Minister is considering this issue, will she look at the investment that needs to take place to encourage lawyers to take on criminal justice cases?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I know that we both look forward to the reopening of Harrow Crown court in Harrow. I would push back on the suggestion that the Mayor of London has not led on tackling violence against women and girls in our city, because there are greater policing numbers and there has been a real drive on that.
On supporting the sustainability of lawyers to both prosecute and defend these cases, the Government have announced an injection of £92 million for criminal legal aid solicitors who defend such cases. We are making that investment and looking to see whether we can go further, particularly in relation to advocates. We are making that investment, and it is a shame the hon. Gentleman’s Government did not do it a little earlier, as we might have been in a rather different position today.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Under this Labour Ministry of Justice we have had leaked prisoners and now leaked documents. When we had leaked prisoners, the Justice Secretary came here, demanded a review, put in new checks and made it clear that he would personally look into it. Given that we have had leaked documents, what steps will be taken? Can the Minister rule out the leak having come from special advisers or Ministers, and will there be a leak inquiry to find out how the information got out from the Ministry?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not going to comment on leaks or the circumstances of leaks. I can say, however, that no one was more irritated by the timing of this leak than I was. The issue of our Crown court backlog and the impact it is having on victims has rightly been well ventilated in debate in this House. It is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct his expert review to engage with and consult a wide range of stakeholders. We have been very open about the issues and the need to have that debate, but I am simply not going to comment on leaks.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is, I think, the third attempt by successive Governments to reduce the right to trial by jury. It is a fundamental right in our system that should not be undermined, and particularly not because the Government have a current and, hopefully, temporary problem with capacity. In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), the Minister recognised that the Lammy inquiry of 2017 found that jury trials are more objective than judge-only trials, less likely to be racially biased and likely to give a fairer outcome. Is the Minister really content that we should be walking away from the jury trial system because of the current problems? Instead, is the answer not, as other hon. Members have suggested, to invest more in the system to deal with the appalling backlog, which she rightly says we have?
Sarah Sackman
We are putting record investment into sitting days, our lawyers and legal aid, and we are investing in technology. However, as Sir Brian Leveson’s review concludes, investment alone is not going to fix the problem that is undermining the fairness of those trials. In many cases, by the time jury trials are being heard, the evidence is years old, witnesses’ minds are no longer fresh in their recollection of the events and people are pulling out of the process. That is fundamentally unfair and not at all progressive, because we cannot guarantee the fundamental right to a fair trial. It is right that we look, as Sir Brian Leveson has indicated, at both structural reform and investment to ensure that we can guarantee a fair trial and, rightly, equality before the law for all.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer this urgent question. I have taken note of what she has said and, if I may, I will quote it back to her:
“a swift and prompt trial is a fundamental ingredient of fairness”,
a three to four year delay is “deeply demoralising”, and “justice delayed is justice denied”. How does she square that position with her support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right to quote back to me the headlines of the arguments that I am making in response to the urgent question about the backlogs in our criminal courts in England and Wales. On his question about my support for the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, it is a fair piece of legislation and one that I stand by.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llefarydd. At the end of December 2024, there were 11,850 outstanding cases at our magistrates courts and 2,663 outstanding cases at Crown courts in Wales. Of course, some 23 Crown and magistrates courts have been closed across Wales since 2010. Does the Minister agree that fewer courts and their distance from communities are significant factors in reduced and delayed access to justice, and that that must be addressed as a priority?
Sarah Sackman
I pay particular attention to the regional disparities in the Crown court crisis and in the delays. We have to look at different regions and see what the right solutions are for them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a particular issue in Wales is the distance that we ask magistrates to travel to perform what is, frankly, an amazing public service. The fact that we have an army of local volunteers who both reflect and serve their community is really important, and I have engaged closely with Welsh magistrates on this subject. She is right that to bring down the backlogs we need—I will not grow sick of saying it—investment, structural reform and modernisation. If we get all three, then regardless of where people live in England and Wales, we will bring down the backlogs and get swifter justice for victims.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that failed asylum seekers are exploiting these delays in the Crown courts? Will she therefore consider restricting the right to jury trial, so that only British citizens can enjoy it?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cases and appeals of asylum seekers are heard in the immigration and asylum tribunal, not in our criminal courts. We are not only making investment in immigration legal aid so that those cases can be heard at a swifter rate, but sitting at close to maximum capacity sitting days to process those cases. When we talk about swifter justice for victims in our criminal courts, that must be our real focus and the real focus of the debate today.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister has spoken about the importance of swift and fair justice, but I feel this decision will set a very dangerous precedent that the state will become addicted to. I sincerely hope the Government do not go down this path, but if they do, I urge the Minister to ensure that this measure is in place only for the duration required to clear the backlog and is then abandoned. It must not become a central tenet of the justice system.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this decision has been prompted by a crisis, and the crisis we inherited from the previous Government is acute indeed. As we speak, day on day and month on month, that backlog heads in the wrong direction. As I have said, we need to do whatever it takes to bring it down to a sustainable level; the way we will do that is by investing in the system and through structural reform and modernisation, but we have a very long way to go. There is no doubt that we have a mountain to climb, and it is only when we are in a sustainable position and can say we are delivering swift justice for victims that we can revisit whether this measure is right for our country.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Trial by jury may be more expensive than trial by judge and magistrates, but does the Minister agree that, as we have heard today, this decision goes beyond just finances? The right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is fundamental and essential to safeguarding justice, and it must be protected for all cases.
Sarah Sackman
The constitutional right that British people have is the right to a fair trial. People are waiting years for their day in court and seeing some defendants whose trial could be heard gaming the system. I believe that the Justice Committee paper says that there were more than 4,000 cases last year alone in which magistrates had sufficient sentencing powers to address the case swiftly. People opted for a jury trial, in some cases deliberately, because they wanted to drag it out, put their victim through that, see witnesses pull out and perhaps get away with it all. That is simply not fair.
We have to guarantee jury trial, especially for the most serious cases—rape, murder and serious drug trafficking—but I am not prepared to ask a victim of rape who has been waiting years for her day in court to get behind someone in the queue who has perhaps stolen a Mars bar but elected to have a jury trial to drag the matter out. That is simply not fair, and that is simply not British justice.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
This is yet another attempt by a Labour Government to limit trial by jury. May I remind the Minister that Tony Blair’s Administration brought forward very similar proposals? In 2007, after a defeat in the House of Lords, they acknowledged defeat. Will the Minister acknowledge that she too will have to admit defeat?
Sarah Sackman
No way. The context we are in is fundamentally different: we have record and rising backlogs, which are now hitting 80,000 cases. I say to Conservative Members, many of whom have raised questions on a similar theme, that I have not heard in a single comment or question any solutions. They are very good at saying what they do not want and wrapping themselves in selective quotes from Magna Carta, but they do not have a single answer. They had 14 years in which to fix the backlogs. What did they do? They buried their heads in the sand, with neglect and under-investment, and watched idly while the backlog escalated. I will tell you what, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do the same.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her answers. However, it is confusing just why this proposed decision is being considered. She talked about solutions, and I refer to Northern Ireland. More than 99% of Crown court cases in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury, and only in exceptional cases is a jury not used or heard. That continues to take place in Northern Ireland. A jury represents normal citizens and gives them a say in the democratic process. What assessment has been made of how this decision could impact on public perception and undermine the civic duty of the normal person? It will ultimately concentrate power in the state and reduce the societal values that we all represent and wish to retain.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman puts his question very well, as is typical of him. I agree that the British public have confidence in jury trials, and rightly so—they are a cornerstone of British justice and will remain so, whatever the exact nature of the plans we put before this House.
However, as I have said, it is not fair to ask victims to wait years for their day in court, undermining the fairness of the trial in so doing. We have to be mindful of the confidence that British people have in the outcomes of this process, which is why we asked an independent expert to look at this matter and looked at international comparisons. In Canada, for example—a common-law jurisdiction and society not so distinct from our own—where I met judges and visited courts, they use types of judge-only trial, and do not see any difference in the quality of justice that is delivered or in the outcomes. We have to take an evidence-based approach, and it is why we are considering this matter as carefully as we are.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is quite right to be angry and frustrated at this leak. I gently say to her that, to put confidence back into the system, the answer might be a leak inquiry.
Business of the House
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 1 December will include:
Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.
Thursday 4 December—Debate on a motion on the war in Ukraine. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 5 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 December includes:
Monday 8 December—Consideration of Lords messages to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords messages to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords messages to the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 9 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
Wednesday 10 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day), debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 11 December—General debate on St Andrew’s day, followed by a general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
I am sure colleagues across the House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Lancashire Day to Lancastrians everywhere, and perhaps most especially to the only Lancastrian Speaker of the 158 people to have held that office—there will have to be three more before it reaches the number of Herefordians who have held it. I also wish a very happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends, hosts and families.
No one needs reminding that the Leader of the House is a thoroughly good and sensible man. [Interruption.] “Careful”, he says. We like to keep things orderly at business questions, but I cannot imagine what he can possibly have made of the past few weeks. We have had an entirely unnecessary period of prolonged economic uncertainty; endless media pitch-rolling and U-turns; a relentlessly dismissive attitude to this House from Ministers; repeated breaches of the ministerial code; and even the fiasco of a convenient Office for Budget Responsibility leak on the morning of the Budget.
The House should be in no doubt that yesterday we saw the Government increase taxes to the highest levels since at least 1970, according to the OBR. Between last year and this, the Government have raised something like £100 billion in additional tax revenue, much of which will fall on working people. They have done so not through any coherent tax policy or vision for the UK economy, but through an array of “back of a fag packet” tricks and wheezes, whose inevitable effect will be to make it even harder for businesses to expand and for people to get jobs. As Paul Johnson, lately of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said, it is
“big tax rises but no effort at reform”.
The tax rises are mainly to finance extra spending, and are not because of worse forecasts.
This Government claim to speak for working people, skills, employment and growth, but those are all things they chose to undermine at yesterday’s Budget. Those were their choices. Even now, the Government have failed to please their union paymasters. In the words of Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, the decision to freeze income tax thresholds will result in 10 million workers paying the higher rate of income tax. A stealth tax on workers means that everyday people pay the price again.
What is the point of this Government? What are they for? No one can say, however they vote and whatever their politics. This Chancellor and this Prime Minister came to power last year with no idea and no plan. Even by that standard, they have been a colossal disappointment, but that is not all. As we just noted in the urgent question, this week has also seen a leak of the Justice Secretary’s intention to abolish jury trial for all but the most serious cases. We had the embarrassing sight of the junior Justice Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—a woman who transparently believes in the importance of jury trial—defending this preposterous proposal. The Justice Secretary is the same man who said in 2020:
“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy.”
Blackstone, no less, called them
“the glory of the English law”,
and yet they are to be abolished by a Justice Secretary and a junior Justice Minister who both went to Harvard law school and a Prime Minister who spent nearly four decades at the Bar.
The Bar Council has made clear that jury trials are not the cause of any case backlog, destroying the Government’s attempted justification for the policy. The Criminal Bar Association has strongly criticised the proposal, as has the legendary Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. Many others will doubtless do the same in the coming days. Again, it is inconceivable to me that the Leader of this House supports this decision. I hope that at the very least he will allow time for a Backbench debate soon on this topic.
Both the Budget and the Government’s proposal to abolish jury trial have something fundamental in common. The Chancellor seemed unaware yesterday that in asking people to, as she put it, “make a contribution” to the Budget, she is not inviting them to engage in some voluntary process. She is in fact using the full force of the coercive power of the state to take away their freely owned property in taxes. The removal of jury trial would do the same thing to the involvement of citizens in this country in the exercise of the criminal law—that other supreme coercive power of the state. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever the smoke and mirrors, both these actions demonstrate that this Government hold the ordinary men and women of this country in profound contempt. No one should be surprised if those actions and this Government are now treated by those people with similar contempt.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the shadow Leader of the House in wishing everyone a happy Lancashire Day. I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to those affected by the fire in Hong Kong. The tragedy that is unfolding is deeply saddening, and my thoughts are with all those impacted. I am sure that the thoughts of the House are similarly with them.
Before I respond to the points that the shadow Leader of the House has made, I remind the House that this week is UK Parliament Week, which is now in its 15th year. Parliament Week continues to increase its reach each year, engaging schools, youth groups and community organisations in constituencies across the United Kingdom. I have been pleased to be involved in a number of Parliament Week events, and I am sure that a number of colleagues are out doing exactly that as we speak. I know that many Members on both sides of the House have also been involved, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your involvement and your leadership on these matters.
Tuesday was White Ribbon Day, when people around the world stand up against male violence against women and girls. I am pleased that the House is in the process of becoming accredited with White Ribbon UK, demonstrating a commitment to preventing abuse and violence against women and girls by promoting gender equality and encouraging everyone, particularly men, to be part of the solution. Ending violence against women is a top priority for this Government, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published soon. It will outline how we can halve levels of violence against women and girls within a decade.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Budget. Yesterday the Chancellor delivered her Budget statement—a Budget that will ease the cost of living, reduce our national debt and bring down NHS waiting lists. He asks about the purpose of the Budget, and those three things are its purpose. Today we begin the second day of debate on the Budget, with further days to follow, which I am sure many Members will want to contribute to.
I recognise the contribution of Members from across the House who have been strong advocates for a number of measures that were included in the Budget yesterday. For example, the Chancellor announced that the Government will transfer the investment reserve fund in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to the scheme’s trustees. That will mean that more money is unlocked for members of the scheme, and I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), and many others who campaigned on this matter.
The Chancellor also announced that the Government will exempt search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty, which will mean that more money can be diverted into critical frontline services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on advocating for that in business questions. Clearly, the Chancellor heeded his words.
The shadow Leader of the House raises the question of briefings and leaks. I take these matters very seriously, as I know you do, Mr Speaker. It is very important that matters are brought to this House at the earliest opportunity, so that Members can be told first. I understand that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking into the wider question of briefings outside this House, and we look forward to seeing its findings.
The right hon. Gentleman also raises the question of the OBR leak. We take that very seriously indeed, and the matter is being investigated.
I return to what I have said previously to the right hon. Gentleman and others on his side of the House on our discussions about the economy and Budgets. After 14 years of failure, my advice is that the best thing they can do is start with an apology. He should apologise, because the very problems that we are seeking to address were partly caused by the legacy of his Government. We are bringing down the cost of living and reducing the national debt, and we will be bringing down waiting lists in the NHS.
Let me finish on the point with which the right hon. Gentleman started: the way in which I take these matters and try to approach being Leader of the House. I do so with seriousness and seek to ensure that there is respect for Members of this House, wherever they sit, so I have to say that I was slightly disappointed yesterday—not about the Budget, which is excellent. Important matters should have been the first order of the day, but we heard from the Leader of the Opposition a speech that, quite frankly, fell short because of the tone that she took. We have talked about ending the knockabout in this place. I just think that yesterday hit the wrong tone, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that message back.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I thank the Leader of the House for his kind words about those of us who campaigned for miners’ pensions justice?
There is real momentum for new economic opportunities now that Labour-led councils, the Welsh Labour Government and the UK Labour Government can work in tandem. In Blaenau Gwent, the council has applied for funding to upgrade the A4046 at Cwm. In Caerphilly, the new council leader, Jamie Pritchard, is driving urgent action to repair the land slip on the A469 between New Tredegar and Pontlottyn in the upper Rhymney valley. May I please ask the Leader of the House for a statement on transport interconnectivity and its economic benefits across the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is correct that having a Labour Government in Wales and a Labour Government in Westminster is the best way these matters can be taken forward. I will raise what he has said with the Secretary of State for Transport, and let us see if some progress can be made.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
First, I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the fire in Hong Kong. I have many constituents from Hong Kong who will be thinking about their family and friends. I also note that this is UK Parliament Week. I know you are very actively involved, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your organisational efforts on that front.
It will have been a relief to you, Mr Speaker, to hear the Budget officially delivered on the Floor of the House yesterday. I know that all the leaks over the past few weeks have been a source of frustration, but it did make that long list of taxes a little easier to digest and comprehend. It felt at one point as though almost every section of the economy was getting its own special tax, except of course for those in the banking industry, who, we hear, were popping champagne corks yesterday about avoiding the windfall taxes that the Liberal Democrats were calling for. It just goes to show that all their lobbying efforts have paid off. According to reports, they got away with no new taxes because they are going to be nice about the Budget on behalf of the Chancellor, so let us see if that holds.
One under-reported bit of the OBR analysis yesterday—in the final pages of the Blue Book—is the potential danger to the UK economy of a major correction in the global stock market. There has been lots of talk recently about the potential for an AI bubble, with price to earnings ratios being comparable with those of a dotcom bubble. JP Morgan has done an analysis of current valuations and the physical limits to investment because of the need to build data centres and so on, and it thinks we could be up to about $5 trillion of investment by 2030. That means AI products will need to create an additional revenue of $650 billion a year to give a reasonable return to their investors. To put that into context, that is about 150% of the revenue that Apple makes, or the equivalent of about $35 a month for every customer it has in the world. It is my feeling that eventually investors will cotton on to that, and they will choose to moderate their investment. When that correction comes, the OBR thinks that it could affect the UK current deficit by between £15 billion and £26 billion, so will the Leader of House request that a Minister makes a statement about what contingency planning the Treasury is making for that scenario?
Sir Alan Campbell
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he forgets the record of the coalition years, when he and his colleagues did nothing to address the issue of the banks that had helped to cause the difficulties that that Government found themselves in. However, he raises an important matter, because we want to ensure long-term financial stability and sustainable growth by setting the global standards for AI governance. The Government are embracing the opportunities that AI brings, while ensuring that we have a robust regulatory framework in place to foster innovation, safety and sustainability, making the UK a global leader in the technology, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Treasury.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his warm remarks about my campaign to exempt search and rescue services vehicles from vehicle excise duty.
Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating this coming weekend’s 25th anniversary of the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which was a landmark achievement by the last Labour Government in opening up the countryside for all to enjoy? Can we have a statement from an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister about what further measures the Government are taking to ensure that there is a uniform, responsible right of access on land and on water across England?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question and for the work that he does on the all-party group on outdoor recreation and access to nature. I am told that his constituency has some lovely countryside walks, and he is a worthy champion for them. Building on the success of previous Labour Governments in these matters, we will continue to work to reduce the barriers against ordinary people accessing nature. I would encourage him to raise this question at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in a few weeks’ time.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business in the Chamber on Backbench Business days. Will he also confirm that we will have the pre-recess Adjournment debate on Thursday 18 December? In addition, the Backbench Business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on Thursday there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debated on seafarers’ welfare. On Tuesday 9 December, there will be a debate on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition, and on Thursday 11 December, there will be a debate on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade, followed by a debate on the future of the oil refining sector. On Tuesday 16 December, there will be a debate on planning policy for quarries, and on Thursday 18 December, a debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen, followed by a debate on community audiology.
I join the Leader of the House in expressing horror at what has happened in Hong Kong. The fire has so far killed 59 people, with hundreds missing and firefighters killed. Three business executives have been arrested. This is not unique. There has been a similar fire in Spain at the Santa Lucia hospital, and, just a year ago, we had a fire in Dartford due to unsafe buildings. Across the country, there are unsafe buildings all over the place, including on Merseyside, where I read this morning that residents have had to be moved out of buildings renovated in 2007 because they are unsafe. In an adjacent constituency to mine, Ballymore is trying to put up a development that is denser than in Hong Kong, with more than 29 blocks of flats, of which 20 are above 20 storeys. The London Fire Brigade initially lodged objections. What is clear is that we in this country have to be wise to what could happen—another Grenfell. We must learn the lessons and ensure fire safety in our new and existing buildings is restored.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for updating the House on the important work of the Backbench Business Committee. I assure him that it is absolutely my intention that the pre-recess Adjournment debate will continue.
The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of real and just concern, following on from the fire in Hong Kong. As I said, my thoughts are with everyone affected, but also with those in this country, particularly in Dartford, Grenfell and elsewhere, who will have had terrible memories revived because of the news. The Government are very clear in our approach that we aim to remove all barriers to remediation, so that buildings can be fixed faster and residents can feel safe in their homes. We published an update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer and we will act on all 58 phase 2 Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system that delivers safe and high-quality homes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I advise the House that questions will finish at about 12.30. If Members can help each other, we should get everybody in.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Residents of Water Orton in my constituency have been plagued by HS2 works for years. Dust covering their cars and washing and now a really disgusting fishy smell are just some of the problems they are having to put up with. My constituents have told me that this is affecting their health. I have been raising this issue with HS2 since I was elected. Residents in Water Orton have been put through unacceptable levels of disruption. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the impact of HS2 works on local residents’ health?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case my hon. Friend raises and the impact on her constituents. She is a very strong voice in this place for her constituents and she is right to raise these matters. It is important that impacts are minimised as far as is reasonably practicable. I understand that HS2 is aware of the concerns and is taking action to address them, but of course that needs to be monitored. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears about these specific concerns.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
The regulator of social housing has found the Labour-run Leicester city council guilty of serious failings in maintaining safe and decent homes, with thousands lacking basic safety checks. The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of racial discrimination in the council’s employment practices and the ombudsman has criticised its failures towards homeless families. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we, as hon. Members, can ensure the Government intervene where councils repeatedly fail in their duty of care to our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns on behalf of her constituents, and I hope that the council has heard what she has said. It is the sort of issue that I would have thought needs more time to expand on than business questions provides, so I invite her to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Advent is approaching. Do you have an Advent calendar, Mr Speaker? If so, is it a traditional one or a chocolate one, or maybe even one filled with wine? If it is filled with wine, the little pouches in it are probably made using technology based in Leighton Buzzard. Those pouches are 125 ml in capacity; because they are sold in an Advent calendar, and there are 24 pouches, that is allowed. Unfortunately, though, we are still not allowed to sell individual 125 ml pouches. Could the Leader of the House explain how I might meet the relevant Minister to see whether we could sell 125 ml pouches, not just at Christmas, but all year round?
Sir Alan Campbell
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I might duck that one. [Laughter.] We are laughing, but these are serious matters for businesses and firms, and I will therefore ensure that the issue is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister, and that my hon. Friend gets a response.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Reaching a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is one of the most significant developments that we are likely to see for farmers and other food producers. It could bring massive opportunities, but also significant risks, especially for arable farmers. Although any agreement will be implemented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is being negotiated by the Paymaster General, so the EFRA Committee invited him to give evidence to the Committee on 9 December. We sent the invitation on 17 September; after four reminders, we eventually received an email on 13 November indicating that the Paymaster General was
“content to decline the kind invitation to give evidence on this occasion.”
The Select Committee is not quite so content with this situation. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Paymaster General and his diary secretary to see whether he might be able to make himself available for 9 December? This is a basic discourtesy to Parliament.
Mr Speaker
Order. I did appeal for brevity, so that I can try to get other Members in. If you do not want your colleagues to get in, just tell me which ones you do not want to speak! You are not helping me at the moment.
Sir Alan Campbell
The House will know that I am a strong advocate for Select Committees, the responsibilities that they hold, and the responsibilities that Members and Ministers have towards them. I will look into the matter; I am content to follow that up with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know about 9 December—let us see what we can achieve—but I will take the matter up with the Paymaster General. He is doing a great job, and he is very busy, but Select Committees are really important.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Last Thursday, Baroness Hallett issued the second part of her important report on covid, which deals with the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the Government’s response to covid and the £400 billion spent on it. After the first Hallett report, there was a statement; by now, I would have expected a statement in the House on the second report, and arrangements to have been made for a debate. Can the Leader of the House tell me when the statement will be, and will he arrange for a debate on the subject in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend acknowledges, there was a statement after the earlier report. The Government will want to keep the House updated as matters evolve, so I will look at making that happen. I should add, though, that we do not need to wait for that to address some of the issues; the Chancellor is addressing them by pursuing the beneficiaries of dodgy deals, and getting £400 million back to invest in public services.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steelworks, and I fully support the Government’s actions to support the industry. A written statement on this subject is published each month. The most recent one says:
“We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 1WS.]
Twice in the past couple of weeks, Ministers have referred to a business plan that exists for the steelworks. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and actually give details of the Government’s business plan?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw that to the attention of the relevant Minister, but I also invite the hon. Gentleman to hear about this from Ministers, at first hand. We will arrange an appointment, if he wishes for that to happen.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy Lancashire day to you, Mr Speaker, and to all celebrating the historic county in Oldham, Chadderton and Royton. For 15 years, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs mileage rate has been 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles. In that time, the cost of buying and running a car, and of insurance and repairs, has clearly increased, but HMRC has not caught up. As a result of those cost rises, the NHS uprated its figure and will now pay 56p per mile for the first 3,500 miles. That means we now have a two-tier system, in which healthcare workers working for the NHS will be paid 25% more per mile than the home care worker in social care. Is it not time that HMRC got its act together, updated the rates, and finally treated working people with the respect that they deserve by paying them fairly for the mileage that they incur?
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a fair point. We owe a great debt to public servants, and it is important that they be treated fairly at work and in their tax matters. If my hon. Friend intends to speak in the Budget debate, he may want to raise this issue then.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Budgets are often about what is not in them, as well as what is; no doubt we will debate that later. A glaring omission from this Budget was a settlement for the women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. We had a statement in which the Government, presumably fearful of the court case that they are about to lose, said that they would do more, but will the Leader of the House recognise that these women, whom the ombudsman has acknowledged were so badly treated, deserve better? Will he arrange for a statement on when there will be further Government action?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Government acknowledged at the time, we do take this seriously, in the light of court judgments and everything else, so we will bring something forward at the earliest opportunity.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I met representatives of Historic England, local historians and community representatives to address the neglect of the grade 2 listed Crown hotel in my constituency. Once a cornerstone of the community and a place where countless memories were made, it is now crumbling, and bringing the rest of our historical high street down with it. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the protection of listed buildings on our high streets?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to protecting our national heritage, and have provided £50 million in the last year to protect our heritage buildings. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are heard by Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because the Government are committed to developing ways of supporting our high streets, particularly in coastal areas.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In a letter to me from 2 October, a Work and Pensions Minister stated that the Department was undertaking a review of the child maintenance calculation, and that it would be published “late this year”. Given that it is almost December, could the Leader of the House confirm whether that is still the timeline, and if it is, when the proposals will be published?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Department has made clear what it proposes to do, and I am sure that it will bring forward the review at the earliest opportunity—if appropriate, before the end of the year.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
From one Lancastrian to another, happy Lancashire day to you, Mr Speaker. Last week, Owen Charnley from Rochdale completed a solo charity walk of more than 4,200 miles from Azerbaijan to his home in Ogden. Owen braved torrential rain, searing heat and several attacks by stray dogs on his trip through 17 countries. He walked 21 miles a day over 233 days, all to raise much-needed funds for two Greater Manchester homelessness charities: Barnabus and the Booth Centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Owen on this amazing feat of kindness as well as endurance?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Owen and others for the efforts they are making. We are backing them by investing over £1 billion in tackling homelessness in the next year. My hon. Friend may wish to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 2 December on the adequacy of funding for the support of homeless people, to highlight and amplify Owen’s efforts.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know from his own teaching experience that challenges faced by schools do not respect administrative boundaries. Dudley and Staffordshire schools in my constituency get hundreds of pounds less per pupil than the same pupils would attract if they went to neighbouring schools in Wolverhampton or Sandwell. Might we have a debate in Government time on the national school funding formula, so that we can ensure that all children get fair funding, wherever their school is?
Sir Alan Campbell
I encourage the hon. Member to call for an Adjournment debate on this matter, because a number of Members across the House may share his concerns. We take the view that every child, wherever they are, should get the support that they need, but he has to acknowledge, as the previous Government did, that need is greater in some areas than others.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Solar geo-engineering is the idea of injecting particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to dim or reflect the light of the sun and cool the planet, and it has been the subject of science fiction and conspiracy theories for many years. However, recent reporting by the respected Politico journalist Karl Mathieson has thrown light on an Israeli company, which is developing technology that it says could halt global warming temporarily. Given the potential risks of the technology, may we have a debate on how Britain will work with other countries to regulate experiments with the Earth’s atmosphere, and to ensure that we co-operate with other countries on solutions that actually tackle the root cause of climate change?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are not in favour of solar radiation modification, given the uncertainty around the risks that it poses for the climate and environment, and we work closely with the international research community to evaluate the latest scientific evidence. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the point, however, at Department for Science, Innovation and Technology questions next month.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
May I also wish you a happy Lancashire day, Mr Speaker? I thank you for ensuring that the historical county flags are flown from New Palace Yard. It is great to see the Lancashire flag flying today.
If I may go on to an Essex question, the Leader of the House should be aware that the Metropolitan police are reducing the opening hours of 25 police stations across Greater London. Romford police station’s opening times will be cut to four hours. That comes on top of the closure of all other functioning police stations throughout Havering, leaving my constituents with limited access to local police stations, and limited opportunity to meet a constable face to face to seek advice or report a crime. That is unacceptable. Once again, Havering is getting an unfair allocation of police resources, thanks to the Mayor of London, who seems to have no interest in our borough. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in the House on the detrimental policy of closing police station front desks across the London region?
Sir Alan Campbell
Many constituents will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and recognise the concerns. I know that face-to-face contact with police officers is very valuable. However, over time, the usefulness of big, and often old, police stations has become questionable, particularly given the use of new technology. It is about balance. As for making decisions about police stations and front counters, that is a matter for the commissioner. I also gently refer to the historical underfunding of the police across our country in general in the last 14 years.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am pleased to see that the Employment Rights Bill is coming back to us shortly. It has been eight and a half months since we first sent it to the other place, and the Lords keep blocking it. Now the Greens have joined the Tories and Lib Dems in blocking our manifesto commitment. I am worried that we will not get Royal Assent in time for the important changes to statutory sick pay, which will benefit millions of people, to come into force in April. Will the Leader of the House look at what he can do this side of Christmas to clear the diary and make sure that we get that Bill over the line, so that we can deliver on our manifesto promises?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the Bill, and on getting it this far. We expect that the other place, which has a right to look into these matters, will respect the judgment of this House and act in a timely fashion. I have announced in future business what the next step will be, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s wish that the Bill will get through before Christmas can be achieved.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The A41 in Shropshire has seen many deaths and injuries over many years. It is a very dangerous road. Three years ago, I secured funding, with the help of the Conservative police and crime commissioner, to get average speed cameras put on the road, to reduce injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, Liberal Democrat-led Shropshire council and Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council have effectively vetoed that plan, saying that there is no case. Putting party politics aside, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the issue, so that we can get people working together to reduce injuries and deaths on the A41?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are ultimately, as the right hon. Member says, matters to be resolved locally. It is important that public bodies work together where they can, especially where a road may be particularly dangerous. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Department for Transport to see whether anything can be done to get the action he wants.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Since July, I have been assisting my constituent who is the victim of stalking by a foreign national. After correspondence, proposed legislative amendments and a ministerial meeting, we were promised some support. The situation has recently deteriorated, placing her in danger. Despite numerous attempts to seek help via the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, nothing has changed. Will my right hon. Friend please use his good offices to intervene and help us?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are very serious matters, and the Government take stalking very seriously indeed. I will meet my hon. Friend and see what further we can do.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Chichester district council local plan was finally adopted this summer after years of speculative development in our area in the wrong places and without the right infrastructure to go with it. This robust local plan was hard fought for by local councillors, but this Government’s new housing targets are putting more pressure on areas such as mine to deliver more homes, and it could render the local plan essentially meaningless. Appeals are being won for development on greenfield sites and farmland that were not identified in this hard-fought-for local plan. Will the Leader of the House please make time to debate the effectiveness of the Government’s planning policy, which disproportionately affects constituencies such as mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the concern of residents, particularly in areas where there is a local plan. The Government have brought forward robust measures to ensure that house building takes place, and I gently remind the hon. Member that people do need places to live. We need more houses, and housing will be one of the engines that drives economic growth. It is a matter of balancing these matters, so I understand her constituents’ concerns, but it is about building the houses where people need to live.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Forty-one years ago, 37 Cammell Laird workers were imprisoned for protecting their jobs and protecting shipbuilding on Merseyside, and they are still waiting to clear their names. Last year, the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said that her Department would consider and explore options for review and provide an update, but there has been no update, no review and still no justice for these men who were wrongfully criminalised for standing up for their rights in the workplace. Can the Leader of the House set aside Government time for a full debate on the Cammell Laird 37 and ensure that Ministers finally set out what action they will take to deliver exoneration for the Cammell Laird 37?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers, because my hon. Friend is right that the people involved deserve an answer, and we will see what Ministers can do to provide that.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
A game of manoeuvres, tactics and at times outright brinkmanship —that might sound familiar to some members of the Cabinet, but I am of course talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic on 2 December. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and wishing them the very best of luck?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to do so. I wish them luck, but of course I wish all the other schools involved luck as well.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Schools in Brent and Ealing, which neighbour my constituency in Harrow, are able to offer teachers an extra £1,000 to work in their schools because of the inner London weighting. Given that the cost of living in Harrow is little different from the cost of living in inner London, and given that my schools occasionally lose skilled teachers to schools less than half a mile away because of this now unfair pay differential, may we have a debate on how the School Teachers’ Review Body might improve pay for teachers and support staff in schools in Harrow?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is right that teachers, wherever they are and whoever they are, are paid fairly for the vital service they do. We promised change for working people, and we are delivering: teachers and others are getting pay awards above inflation for the second year in a row. I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Minister, but he may also wish to raise them directly with Ministers on Monday.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Lloyds bank is to close the last bank in Ammanford on 12 January, leaving a banking desert in the second-largest town in my constituency. As we are all being encouraged to bank online and become digital, we forget the 39% of Lloyds’ Ammanford customers who do not bank online. Despite Ammanford having levels of deprivation seen in many post-industrial towns, a large number of young people not in education, employment or training, and high unemployment, Link does not feel that the town requires a banking hub, despite an appeal from me and colleagues. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the importance of banking hubs in rural and post-industrial areas such as mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
I invite the hon. Lady to apply for an Adjournment debate as this matter has been raised a number of times in business questions. I know that there has been an attempt to get a banking hub, but I suggest that she pursues that and draws that to the attention of Ministers. We changed the law to ensure that, where they are necessary, face-to-face banking can take place through banking hubs, so I would not give up on it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Recent figures from Police Scotland show that Paisley now has the highest sickness absence rate of any police area in our country, which is a clear sign that our dedicated officers are being pushed to the brink by relentless workloads and constant pressure. The fallout is hitting my constituency hard, with antisocial behaviour in Paisley town centre putting people off visiting our beautiful town and hammering local shops that should be thriving. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling out the SNP’s reckless mismanagement of Police Scotland and urge it to invest in our public services the £10 billion that it has had from this Labour Government since we were elected?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that the SNP has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks, because keeping people safe is the first responsibility of any Government. It is important that we support the police in both the powers and the resources we give them. Our Crime and Policing Bill will equip the police in England with new, stronger powers to tackle the crimes that matter most to communities. I urge the SNP Government to listen carefully as, after all, they received the largest funding settlement since devolution at the recent spending review.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that £6 billion of costs associated with special educational needs and disabilities provision has not been catered for in the Budget. Given that, it suggests that there will be an effective 4.9% cut in mainstream school spending per pupil. That is a massive concern for colleagues across the House. As SEND is such a tough issue to resolve, will the Leader of the House consider time for a debate on this matter so that we can resolve what has happened in the Budget?
Sir Alan Campbell
The claim, as reported, that schools will be required to cover SEND costs is not correct. We are clear that any deficit will be absorbed within the overall Government budget. Funding for future years will be confirmed in the next spending review. I have just announced—including today—three days of Budget debate, and I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to use that time to make those points.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
In my constituency, residents living near the B5013 at Blithfield reservoir have raised serious concerns about speeding and dangerous driving. There have been multiple fatalities on this stretch of road, and in August a man in his 20s unfortunately lost his life. May I ask the Leader of the House if we can find Government time for a debate on how we can hold local authorities to account for their responsibilities specifically on rural roads to protect communities such as mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of that case. These are important matters, and work is under way to deliver an updated strategic framework for road safety—the first in over a decade—to reduce road deaths and injuries. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives an update on that work. He may wish to look for an Adjournment debate, because I am sure that his concerns will be shared by many hon. Members across the House.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A care provider in my constituency recently closed, leaving vulnerable patients without care, and leaving staff who fulfil roles in that vital sector, and who are there on sponsored visas, in limbo. We have people who need care, and we have people who can provide it but are not able to do so. Will a Minister make a statement to the House on what will be done to protect sponsored visas from the changes in the visa system?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises an important question, and I will ensure that she gets an explanation from the appropriate Minister.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I associate myself with hon. Members’ comments about the horrific fire in Hong Kong.
My constituents’ vulnerable son died recently after attempting suicide in his prison cell at Forest Bank prison and later succumbing to his injuries. His mother is understandably devastated and appalled about the standard of care that he received prior to his death. Some 27 inmates at Forest Bank—a private prison run by Sodexo—have now died in the past five years alone, which is deeply troubling. Might we have a debate in Government time on the standard of private prisons that receive Government contracts?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the friends and family of my hon. Friend’s constituents—and indeed to all friends and family who have been affected by deaths in custody, which are always a tragedy. Prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm are supported through individual case management, but the case that my hon. Friend raises is worrying. I will ensure that the Justice Secretary hears his concerns, and I invite him to request a meeting—which I will facilitate—with the appropriate Minister.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Electric and plug-in car drivers in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire have woken up angry and anxious this morning. They were told to do the right thing by getting electric cars, yet the Chancellor is going around this morning saying that they will be charged per mile and that the money will go into improving roads. The Leader of the House, a learned man, will know that that link was broken in 1937. There is some consternation about how the charges will affect the second-hand car market, whether vehicles will need trackers, and what happens when charges are passed over. Those are serious considerations for my constituents, who are trying to understand how the scheme will work. May we have a debate in Government time on how the electric vehicle charges will work?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises important matters. I am sure that the Government will bring forward a full explanation of how the charges will work. Following yesterday’s Budget, I invite him to spend this period of Budget debate raising those matters so that he can hear the answer he seeks from Ministers themselves.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will safeguard the hard-won protections of workers up and down the country. Prior to its implementation, however, some companies are racing to undercut workers’ rights. I am appalled on behalf of workers at Tetrosyl in my constituency, which is engaging in shameful fire-and-rehire practices. What more can we in this House do to give voice to workers who are now facing deep financial uncertainty before Christmas?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are committed to ending unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices through the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that the company she refers to has heard her comments. She may wish to raise these matters during the Budget debate or in the upcoming Christmas Adjournment debate, so that, if necessary, she can call the company out.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Last year, gig ticket scams cost music lovers over £1.6 million, as fans were exploited by greedy ticket touts. The money they paid for fake tickets often went on to fund serious organised crime groups. That makes people less willing to buy tickets for live events, which undermines that important industry, particularly in areas like Glastonbury and Somerton. May we have a debate in Government time on the ticket resale market and ticket scams?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government are committed to bringing forward measures to address those issues. When we do so, there will be ample time to debate the points that she raises.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow, Tony Wright, my constituent and the founder and chief executive officer of Forward Assist, a local veterans charity, is retiring. Tony is a veteran and trained social worker, and he has provided support and advocacy for veterans across the region and the country for well over a decade. It is no exaggeration to say that the tireless work and research that he has led has changed and saved lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Tony and wishing him all the best in his retirement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will take great pleasure in doing so. I have had the honour of knowing Tony Wright. As I said to him recently, his work has improved people’s lives for the better, including the lives of people he will never have met. I am sure that many Members across the House will not only wish Tony the best and thank him for his work, but acknowledge the impressive veterans in their own constituencies who, like Tony, do such fantastic work on behalf of the veteran community—indeed, on behalf of the whole community. These sessions are a good opportunity to highlight that work, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Far too many children face eating development issues and conditions, and they often feel that they do not get the relevant support from the NHS. Parents feel stigmatised, are told that their children will grow out of it, and often feel that their parenting is being condemned by healthcare professionals. The Feeding Trust in my constituency is doing excellent work to raise awareness of this issue. Will the Leader of the House endorse the representations I have made to the Health Secretary asking that the matter be a front-and-centre priority for the NHS? The Government must ensure a joined-up approach with the Department for Education, schools and the curriculum.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Indeed, we are taking action and are committed to ensuring that there is provision not just across the community but in schools. The Mental Health Bill will present the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to raise those concerns. Of course, we also have the NHS 10-year plan. These are difficult issues for parents, and he is absolutely right to raise them on the Floor of the House.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The end of November is nigh, so dodgy moustaches across the land will finally disappear—but not before thousands of us MoBros have raised millions for Movember, which does brilliant and much-needed work for men’s health. Donations are still gratefully received, of course. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all MoBros across the House and beyond, as well as everybody who has raised money for men’s health this month, and will he grant time for a debate on the three missions of Movember: mental health, prostate cancer and testicular cancer awareness?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Members who support Movember, not least because of the money that they raise for important causes. I am heartened that those issues get the awareness that they deserve. I congratulate him on what he is doing, and thank him for what was a very moving contribution to the debate on International Men’s Day.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Niagara Falls was the venue for this year’s world kickboxing championships. Andy Crittenden’s martial arts centre put Rossington firmly on the global map, winning four bronze, one silver and five gold medals. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Andy’s triumph and congratulating all the contestants who took part, and in thanking the coaches and volunteers up and down the country who bring children and young adults’ sporting dreams to life?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am pleased to hear about the success of the young martial arts athletes from Rossington, and I am grateful for the opportunity to thank Andy and all the sports coaches across our country who help to make achievements like this possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am deeply concerned by the growing and systematic discrimination faced by Christians in Algeria, including the closing of churches and the aggressive abuse of blasphemy legislation against Christian converts. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to ensure the protection of Christian communities and the promotion of freedom of religion and belief in Algeria as a fundamental priority?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such a serious issue, as he always does. As he knows, we are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. We monitor the human rights situation in Algeria and routinely meet religious groups there to determine how best to support freedom of religion and belief. I understand that the relevant Foreign Office Minister met the Algerian Government last month to discuss this very issue. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Forth Valley College recently announced that its Alloa campus risks closure due to SNP cuts. The prospect is devastating for Forth valley and is a direct threat to the opportunities of thousands of working-class Scottish kids from Stirling, Falkirk and especially Clackmannanshire. Reform Falkirk took a different view, commenting recently:
“The College sector needs slimmed down too much focus on woke ideologies.”
Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a ludicrous insult by Reform to our vital Scottish further education sector, which educates the people who make up our local economy and public services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of education and opportunity for young people in his constituency and his area. He is absolutely right that Reform’s message on the closure of important courses at the Alloa campus is an insult to not only lecturers and teachers, but to the choice that students themselves make. Scotland has a proud tradition and record on education, and it is unfortunate that Reform UK seems determined to undermine it and talk it down.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is Family Business Week. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Natalie Couper Dance Academy? Whether it is for jazz, hip-hop, lyrical, freestyle, acrobatics or any kind of dance, those who come to the academy are treated like family by Natalie and Korrie. It is fantastic that they are expanding their business again in January 2026, and I loved visiting them and taking part in a dance session—even though Natalie’s granny Maggie said I had two left feet, which was correct.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Natalie Couper Dance Academy on its growth and thanking it for everything it does. I am frankly not surprised that he has been recognised as a man of the left, because he has been proclaiming it for such a long time. Local businesses like dance academies can add so much to a local community, and I am pleased to hear that it is expanding its business again.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently presented a petition to restore Falmouth’s pool, which we lost three years ago. It got 5,754 wet signatures—over a quarter of the population of the town. We have a very active community interest company and private business support, and the mayor has just swum the length of the channel—in a different pool a 40-minute drive away—to raise money. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to meet the mayor and me as part of the response to our petition and grant Government time for a debate on Government support for pools?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a fierce campaigner for her constituency, and I commend her for that. I understand that she has raised this issue with the Department before. We are committed to ensuring that communities can benefit from high-quality sports facilities, and we are investing £400 million in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, including swimming pools, across the UK. I will ensure that she gets the meeting she requests from the Minister.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
My colleague, Professor Malcolm Reed, the former chair of the Medical Schools Council, has been trying to address the serious issue of sexual misconduct in medical schools. When students undertake placements in NHS or other non-university settings, an accountability gap exists, as they fall outside both university and NHS misconduct policies. How can we ensure there is the co-operation required to address this between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter and a very worrying issue. I will raise that with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care as a starting point and encourage them to meet my hon. Friend, so that he can expand on the issue he raises.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes business questions. I will give the Front Benchers a few moments to swap over.
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The film “Groundhog Day” sees Phil Connors go to a place where he wakes up every morning to the same DJ playing the same song: “I Got You Babe” by Sonny and Cher. We have a very similar situation with the Chancellor. It is groundhog day, with the Chancellor destroying the economy, putting up taxes, losing her fiscal headroom, and round and round it goes. That film was said to be a romantic comedy. Well, there has been nothing comedic about the results that this Chancellor has delivered in terms of increased unemployment, diminished living standards, higher inflation and so on. Whether the public were ever enamoured with the Chancellor, I know not, but they certainly are not now—according to the polls, she is apparently the least popular Chancellor in the history of polling on that question.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I liked the introduction to the shadow Chancellor’s speech. Would a better film analogy perhaps be “The Nightmare Before Christmas”?
Sir Mel Stride
That is absolutely true.
Let us look at how we ended up at this sorry pass. In opposition, Labour assured the British electorate that they would not be putting up taxes left, right and centre, and when they got into power, what did they do within a few short months? They slapped taxes—£40 billion-worth—on the British people, £25 billion of that by way of national insurance increases on business alone. It is no surprise that that destroyed employment and growth.
They talked down the economy. They came up with this confected £22 billion black hole. What an irony it was—[Interruption.] There may be chuntering from those on the Front Bench, but what an irony it was that it was at the behest of the Government themselves that the Office for Budget Responsibility was invited to look into this claim and said that it would not legitimise that figure. The damage was done. The animal spirits in the economy were extinguished.
Of course, they did something else that socialists down the ages always do: they borrowed and borrowed and borrowed and spent and spent and spent until they ran out of other people’s money—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Who did the borrowing?
Sir Mel Stride
The Minister is having trouble containing himself, such is the punishment that he is receiving at the moment. They borrowed all this money, and what did that do? It stoked inflation, and with inflation higher, interest rates have been higher for longer.
Sir Mel Stride
The Minister says from a sedentary position that inflation is coming down. The International Monetary Fund says that inflation will be the highest in the G7 this year and next year.
We know that with high inflation, interest rates are higher for longer. That means businesses’ borrowing costs are higher. It means that consumer sentiment is dampened. It means that the servicing cost alone on the burgeoning debt that this Government are constantly adding to is currently £100 billion a year—twice what we spend on defence. In fact, if debt servicing were a Government Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall—not spending money on better public services, as we are often told by the Labour party, but simply paying for the profligacy of the Labour party when it comes to borrowing.
The run-up to this Budget was a farce. We have seen weeks and weeks of uncertainty generated by the Treasury, which has leaked every possible combination of tax increases and then U-turned on some of them. It has flown so many kites that it has blotted out the sun, and a huge shadow has been cast across businesses, which have pressed pause on investment and hiring. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should speak to Andy Haldane, who concludes that what I am saying is absolutely right. It has also weighed down on consumer sentiment. All this hokey-cokey around what is in the Budget has done real damage to our economy on this Government’s watch.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My right hon. Friend did a service to the House a week or two ago when he drew what he is describing now to the attention of this Chamber. He told the Government that these leaks were not only doing damage to the economy, in the way he has just described, but were a discourtesy to this House. Many times, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and Mr Speaker have said that announcements should be made to this House first. It is fundamental to this place that what the Government announce is brought here for scrutiny, not the public realm.
Sir Mel Stride
My right hon. and gallant Friend is entirely right, as usual, and something else has also been going on. I have written to the OBR to ask Richard Hughes exactly what happened with the information that the Treasury appears to have leaked out about the forecasts during the run-up to the Budget. I say that in the knowledge that the OBR’s own guidance says that information exchanged with the Treasury during the build-up to a Budget is provided to Ministers in confidence. Why is it then that the Chancellor herself was on the airwaves before the Budget, opining on the apparent coming downgrade to productivity? I have written to the OBR to ask whether it feels that that was appropriate.
I have also written to the permanent secretary to the Treasury to ask if he is implementing an investigation into the leaks coming from the Treasury. Interestingly, he has written back to me simply to say that in the event that there are suspected leaks, of course there is an investigation. He has not quite answered my question as to whether there is an investigation being undertaken at the moment, but I will be following up with him on that matter.
What has happened in this Budget? The OBR forecasts tell a sorry story: unemployment is higher in every single year of the forecast than it was forecast to be back in the spring. Inflation is up—we have seen the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. Labour is the party that talks about resolving poverty; it is a disgrace that food inflation in the last set of figures went up way above the headline rate, from 4.5% to 4.9%. That rise is being borne by some of the most vulnerable and some of the poorest in our society.
On growth, of course the Chancellor tells a good story. She says that the growth forecast is up compared with spring this year, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, it is down compared with the autumn of last year, when the OBR said that growth would be 2% in this year; it is now forecast to be 1.5%. In in every subsequent year, growth is forecast to be lower than was forecast back at the time of the spring statement. That is the simple fact.
Sir Mel Stride
We will come on to why that is the case momentarily.
What has happened to borrowing? One might have thought that the Government would have learned the lesson that ever-increasing borrowing always leads to disaster, but no: there is £11 billion of additional borrowing on average in every year of the forecast. What has that done to living standards? Real household disposable income—the economists’ measure of economic wellbeing —is down in every year of the forecast compared to the forecast in the spring.
The OBR says—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will like this one—that real income growth across this forecast will be well below the average of the last decade. So this Government should not point a finger at the last one when it comes to living standards.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Mel Stride
I will in a moment. It is there in black and white in the OBR’s report. The reason for that forecast is £26 billion of additional taxation in 2029-30, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will know, an additional £12 billion of tax take that will occur because of fiscal drag. Those higher inflationary numbers in the forecast are dragging ever more people into paying ever more tax.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I am not churlish about the extra money that the Labour Government have given to pensioners, the fact is that they have pushed more people beyond the threshold, meaning that pensioners will pay more tax than they have ever paid. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when it comes to helping people, unfortunately this Government have given with one hand and taken away with the other?
Sir Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The income tax threshold freeze—which has been extended for three years, even though the Government briefed that it would probably just be two—means 780,000 more people paying tax for the first time, because the personal allowance will be frozen for longer, and 920,000 people going into the higher rate tax bracket. In fact, by 2029-30, around one in four workers in this country will be in the higher rate tax bracket.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the measure is a clear breach of the Labour party manifesto. The Chancellor herself accepted in the autumn Budget last year, when she said that she would not come forward with the measure, that it would hurt working people. She repeated that yesterday. It is very clear that this is a breach of the Labour party manifesto.
When it comes to young people, we hear that there will be a freeze to the student loan payment thresholds. Young people are already disproportionately impacted by the changes to national insurance, particularly the reduction in the threshold that means that lower-income earners, which include younger people, will be disproportionately impacted by those tax changes.
The Employment Rights Bill, which is coming down the line, will make it far riskier to take younger people—[Interruption.] Government Members should be careful what they wish for. The Labour party speaks a lot about those who are not in employment, education or training, of which there are about 940,000; that Bill will do nothing to improve their life chances. It will make things worse. It will make it more risky to take those people on and employ them.
Rachel Taylor
As the right hon. Gentleman seems to care so much about those who are not in education, employment or training, why did he allow 88,000 young people to become NEETs, and is he proud that when he left office, almost 1 million young people were not in any form of employment, education or training? Is this not the worst kind of hypocrisy?
Sir Mel Stride
I congratulate the hon. Lady on reading accurately from the Whips’ circular. The Opposition stand by our record—[Interruption.] Absolutely. When we were in government, we were a job-creating machine: there were 4 million more jobs under us than had been there before. When we left on the day of the general election, we had a near-record high level of employment and a near-record low level of unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, but it happens to be true. One of the results of the Budget for young people is that there will continue to be a lost generation of workers.
What about those who want to save, do the right thing and provide for their future in retirement? Should we not be encouraging that? What has the Budget delivered on that front? Salary sacrifice has been savaged, the savings tax has been put up, and the cash ISA has been cut. We are punishing savers. We will see the reverberating effects of those measures for many generations and many years to come.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The sad fact is that youth unemployment—that is, unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds—is at a staggering 15%. Given the national insurance hikes and the rise in the minimum wage, employers are unlikely to consider taking young people on, which could have the disastrous effect that people who graduate from university or from an apprenticeship will emerge having done a lot of work, but will not be able to get a proper job.
Sir Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is precisely right. I have set out the iniquitous impacts of the reduction of the national insurance threshold on younger people, as well as the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have by increasing the risks of employing younger people. That is self-evident and obvious, and businesses are saying it over and over again. If an employer is put in a position where he is faced with a young person who has no career track record, and the Government’s legislation says that on day one the employee can take that employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal—a claim that may get clogged up for two years, and for which the lawyers advising the employer will probably conclude that he should give in and pay out, even if the merits of the case do not warrant it—that is a recipe for higher youth unemployment. It is simple; it is basic economics.
Look at the taxes in the Budget placed on rental income. Do Labour Members not realise that that will lead to higher rents and fewer properties on the market? Do they not understand that if the family home is taxed, we will catch a lot of people who may be asset rich but are income poor? I suppose the solution will be to allow that liability to roll up and be paid on death—yet another death tax at the hands of this Government.
What is all this pain and taxation paying for? In large part, it is paying for more welfare—it is as simple as that. Scrapping the two-child cap is a mistake and it is unfair, because those who are paying taxes, working hard and doing the right thing have to take tough choices as to whether they can afford a larger family or not. It is quite right and proper that those who are on benefits should face similar choices.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the majority of people impacted by this uplift, and two-thirds of children in poverty, have a parent in work. The false dichotomy of those in work and out of work is simply incorrect, and as a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, he should know that.
Sir Mel Stride
I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should.
The other point to make is about inflation. If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about.
There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well. That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare—[Interruption.] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not.
We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear—[Interruption.] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say. The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country.
When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals—[Interruption.] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers.
There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time:
“That for he who has, then that must be taken away.
For he who has not, then to him must be given.”
That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement.
For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished. An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on behalf of the Government, and to respond to the shadow Chancellor. He went through his lines and, as I expected, he talked a fair bit about welfare. If only he had ever been in a position to do something about it. That is the essential problem with the position of Conservative Members. It is not even that they failed to reform the system, it is that they created it in the first place. Their system created the fork in the road between those judged fit to work and those judged unfit to work. Their system forced people into a choice between poverty and being declared incapable of work, often permanently. It is their system that left millions of people with no contact and no support from the system, other than the payment of benefits. Perhaps most damningly, it is their system that saw the huge growth in inactivity among the young, about which they did nothing while they were in office.
As the shadow Chancellor knows, there is a wall in the Department for Work and Pensions, carefully placed between the microwave and the toilets, on which there is a very fetching portrait of the shadow Chancellor, along with portraits of all his predecessors as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They all sat in the same chair, in the same office as I do. They saw the same trends and the same graphs that I see, but they did absolutely nothing about the situation. He talked about the changes that he proposed to the work capability assessment, but he was a little quieter about those changes not happening, because they were so incompetent that they were struck down as being unlawful by the courts. He then said that he would have done more but he was interrupted by the general election—the Conservatives had 14 years and the election was called at a time of their choosing.
The shadow Chancellor is asking the House to indulge the fantasy that, having been relieved of the duties of ministerial office, he has suddenly stumbled upon the answer to the problem, like a reverse Nostradamus, granted a magical power that enables him to identify the solutions to problems, but only at the moment when he ceases to have responsibility for fixing any them. The Conservatives remind me of a messy 16-year-old who has turned his bedroom into a tip, but when his exasperated parents come in to clean it up, the teenager says, “I was about to do that.” No one believes the teenager and no one should believe the Tories, because they had their chance and did nothing about it.
On their watch, welfare spending went up by almost 1% of GDP over the last Parliament, the equivalent of about £22 billion a year. When they left office, did the OBR think that they had a credible plan to change the system? No, they did not. The OBR predicted that costs would rise by a further £100 billion. Sometimes the Tories say that they want more face-to-face assessments, which I want too. However, in September 2023, a little over six months before the election was called, they signed off a new set of contracts allowing 80% of the assessors to work from home. Who was the Secretary of State when those contracts were signed? We do not need ChatGPT to tell us—we just need to look on that wall between the microwave and the toilets, because it was the shadow Chancellor. And that was long after the covid pandemic.
The Conservatives created the system, but they did not change it when they had the chance and they increased the number of children in poverty by 900,000, so it falls to us to begin to change the system. We have begun. We are reducing the gap in universal credit between standard unemployment and the sickness rate, a change that the OBR estimates will get 15,000 more people into work and that starts to address the incentives for sickness built into the previous Government’s system, reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Changes to the Motability scheme will focus on value for money and ensure that if the UK taxpayer is paying for new vehicles, more of them are made here in the UK—reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about trying to ensure that cars available under the Motability scheme are made in the UK. I looked at the Motability website yesterday and some of the changes have already been implemented, but there are an awful lot of Chinese cars listed. Yesterday, Omoda and Jaecoo, two of the Chinese companies on that list, announced that they would be implementing a 20,000 mile rebate to individuals to pay for the electric vehicle tax introduced in the Budget. That will allow China to get an even greater foothold in the UK economy. Those cars are built with Chinese IP that sends information straight back to the state, allowing it to track where those vehicles are. What will the Government do to address the impact of the growing number of Chinese vehicles and about the fact that the Budget is, perhaps unwittingly, encouraging the use of Chinese cars in this market?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman should be supporting our changes because they have done two things: they are removing a number of luxury brands from the system and they are ensuring that more British-made cars are part of the scheme, and that will continue going forward.
By the end of the decade, we will have provided an additional £1 billion for employment support for the long-term sick and disabled through the pathways to work programme, so that people are not just signed off and written off—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not. We are fixing the long-running injustice to carers that they ignored for years, which is more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not. There is more reform in this Budget than the shadow Chancellor implemented in his 20 months as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
But I know that we have to go further, because the greatest crisis is among the young. We inherited a situation with close to a million people not in employment, education or training. That is terrible in human terms, expensive in financial terms and deeply unequal, because the numbers are often highest in the most deprived parts of the country. Those are often places where there are already multiple problems and where the loss of hope seems the deepest. Addressing this problem is a cause around which we should rally. That is why in this Budget we offer a youth guarantee, with £820 million of investment, that will offer the young unemployed a training place, work experience or ultimately a job, giving hope and opportunity where previously there was none—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not.
Sir John Hayes
I am very interested in that part of the Budget and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting it out in more detail. One part of the youth guarantee is the boost for apprenticeships, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, but looking at the fine print, is that not already supplied by the apprenticeship levy? What small and medium-sized enterprises need, as I learned when I was the apprenticeships Minister, is some grant funding to get them started in the process. Does the Government have that in mind or is this simply a rehash of the apprenticeship levy?
Pat McFadden
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s request for more public expenditure and I am coming on to the growth and skills levy in a moment. What we will do with that is tilt it more towards young people and towards more short courses, and this Budget puts a further £725 million into that, which will enable the full funding of apprenticeships for the under 25s for small businesses. That is good for young people and good for employers. It is important, because no matter where they are from, what their background is or who their parents are, every young person should have the chance to make the most of their life. I want the country’s young people to know that through our youth guarantee, the apprenticeship support and the other measures outlined in the Budget and outside it, we will support them, we believe in them and we want them to succeed.
Even after that, I know that we need to go further, and that is why I have asked former Health Secretary Alan Milburn to report in the new year on the issues of young people, work and inactivity, looking across departmental boundaries and recommending policy responses that will offer young people more opportunity and a better chance in life.
After the Conservatives either neglected all that or opposed that which they did not neglect, what have they got left? Arguing that instead of our approach, people’s wages should be lower. We saw where that led during the last Parliament. The shadow Chancellor talked about living standards—during the last Parliament, living standards declined more than at any time in living memory. Now living standards are rising in this Parliament and wages have risen more in a matter of months than they did in 10 years when the shadow Chancellor’s party was in office.
As people sometimes remind me, I have been around for quite a while. I am proud to have served in the last Labour Government, which lifted 600,000 children out of poverty—and almost all the measures delivered were opposed by the Conservative party. In fact, the Conservatives’ record was a rise in child poverty of 900,000. Their argument was that the two-child limit would force people to make different choices about the number of children that they would have, but that is not what happened; it simply forced more children into poverty.
The real indictment goes deeper, because, as the right hon. Member for Central Devon knows, the two-child limit was not really a welfare policy at all. In the end, it was not even about saving the money. The truth is that it was about political dividing lines. It was a device used by the Conservative Government, in which children were the weapon of choice. That is what it was about, but not any more. Tackling child poverty is an investment in the future of those children and in the country, because children who do not grow up living in poverty will have a better life. This policy is not just about the distribution of money; it is an investment in opportunity. That is why the Chancellor announced the abolition of the two-child limit in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said, the clear majority of households that will gain from this measure already have someone in work. The policy will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and that number will rise, thanks to other measures, such as the expansion of free school meals, help with energy bills, and the expansion of free childcare so that more parents can take up work.
This will be the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. As the Chancellor spelled out, it can be funded by a combination of tackling fraud and error in the system, the Motability and other changes, and the changes to online gambling taxation that she announced yesterday.
We understand that the health and welfare systems are deeply connected, so we will continue to get waiting lists down, and to treat more patients. We announced 250 new neighbourhood health centres in the Budget. Waiting lists and waiting times rocketed when the Conservatives were in office, and that was not just a health issue; it was an economic and benefits issue. A system that treats people more quickly, rather than having them wait in pain, is good for the economy, too. Through the reforms that we are making on incentives and support in the system, and on opportunity and tackling poverty, we are beginning to change the welfare state from a passive distributor of benefits to a platform of opportunities to get people back into work. However, we need to go further, and we will.
No one on the Labour Benches underestimates the scale of the challenges we face. There is no escaping the fact that the OBR’s decision to downgrade its assessment of productivity is the official verdict on the Conservatives’ years in office. They left this Chancellor with a £16 billion hole to fill. That hole is not because of the decisions she took, but because of the scarring effects of the Conservatives’ time in power. A botched Brexit deal, austerity that impoverished the public realm, and cuts to capital investment—the OBR is clear that they all caused long-term damage to the UK’s productivity and economic growth. That has to be owned by the Conservatives.
The shadow Chancellor attacked the Budget in the strongest terms, and he is right that it is a contrast with the Conservatives’ record, because they took the country to the very precipice of economic disaster. They used the British public as a test bed for a giant ideological experiment that saw mortgages go through the roof. The Bank of England had to launch an emergency rescue package for the country’s pension system. The Conservatives shook international confidence in the UK economy and destroyed whatever economic credibility they had by their own hand. There is a difference in our approaches—a very welcome one.
We have trade agreements with the world’s biggest economic powers—agreements that eluded the Conservatives. We have a reformed planning system, which will get the country building. Public investment is at its highest level for four decades, and inflation is coming down faster, as a result of the measures that we are taking. It will come down by a full 0.4 percentage points next year, according to the OBR. Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast. We are keeping corporation tax at the lowest level of any G7 country. We have help for high streets, and permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 businesses. We are doubling eligibility for our enterprise tax incentives, so that new businesses can not only be created, but can grow and scale up here in the United Kingdom.
We are cutting energy costs for 7,000 businesses to make manufacturing more competitive. We are providing help with the cost of living through the first rail fare freeze for 30 years. We are freezing prescription charges. Energy bills are being cut by £150 per year. We are raising the national minimum wage for millions of workers, as recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. We are expanding free breakfast clubs, and there are free school meals for all children in families on universal credit.
This is a Budget for the whole country. It helps with living standards and helps people to meet their monthly bills. It fixes some of the problems of the past, and gives the country strong foundations for the future. It is a Budget that believes in maintaining the public square, and it continues the progress that we have made on the NHS. That progress is, for us, not just a social goal, but an economic goal. It is a Budget that protects the state pension and raises its value by £575 next year. It is a Budget that continues with welfare reforms, reduces child poverty and offers hope to young people for the future. That is the difference, and that is why we should support the Budget today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
This time last year, Government Ministers told us repeatedly that their No. 1 mission was growth, but after Labour’s second Budget, it is clear that growth is nowhere to be seen. The OBR makes it clear that the Budget has almost no meaningful growth measures at all. The Confederation of British Industry has concluded that the Government’s growth mission has stalled, and others say that it is positively anti-growth. We Liberal Democrats have consistently said that the Government cannot just tax their way to prosperity; they must grow their way to it. The most effective way of doing that—the single biggest growth lever that the Government could pull—is fixing our relationship with Europe.
The Conservative-Reform Brexit deal has been a disaster for our country and for British business. It has left our public finances with a £90 billion Brexit black hole; the Labour Government know it, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has just said it, but for some unfathomable reason, the Government will not just get on and fix it. We Liberal Democrats once again call on the Government to get serious about fixing our relationship with Europe.
Research by the House of Commons Library shows that a better deal—a deal within the Government’s red lines, that excludes a customs union, the single market and all the rest—could raise an additional £25 billion a year in revenue. With our proposal of a bespoke UK-EU customs union, we could raise even more. Members on the Labour Benches will say, “We have all these new trade deals. We are fixing this relationship,” but once again, the OBR report from yesterday spells it out in black and white. It says that the lasting effects of Brexit more than wipe out the combined benefits of all the Government’s new trade deals. If the Government want economic sustainability, it is clear as day what they need to do.
The same could be said about headroom. This time last year, we knew that Donald Trump was heading back into the White House, and we Liberal Democrats warned the Government that they had not left enough headroom to deal with the economic headwinds, which were predictable and predicted. We welcome the fact that the Government, as part of their mission to create a sustainable economy, have provided more headroom this time around, but we disagree with the way that they built it, relying on billions from unfair stealth taxes and other tax hikes on people and small businesses. That was not a fair choice; a fairer choice would have been to ask the big banks to do their bit.
The Government know that if they do nothing on the big banks, taxpayers will pay out approximately £30 billion to the big banks between now and April 2031—not because of any risk that they have taken, or any loans they have made, but because of a glitch in quantitative easing. In the middle of a cost of living crisis and a cost of doing business crisis, the Government seem happy for £30 billion of taxpayers’ money to be paid out to the big banks, but we Liberal Democrats are not. That is why we have called for a windfall tax on the QE-related parts of the profits that the big banks have received, which would raise £30 billion for the taxpayer over the next five and a half years. We propose that just less than half of that money be spent on slashing energy bills by removing levies from them, but we would not lose the revenue for the insulation schemes that the Government have just axed. Some of the money could also be used to slash VAT by 5% for hospitality, attractions and visitor accommodation over the next 17 months until April 2027. That would give a boost to local economies in every single village, town and city across this country to get our economy moving again. That is the kind of growth stimulus that we Liberal Democrats would pursue.
It is incredibly frustrating that the Government are not doing more for our high streets. They will say that they are looking to introduce permanently lower business rates multipliers. They may have done so, but the new, higher valuations were published this morning, and many businesses are warning that they could simply wipe out any benefit that businesses get from the lower multipliers. I saw a WhatsApp exchange between some of my pub landlords in St Albans this morning, and when one of them saw the higher valuation for their independent pub, they replied with a single word. It was the word that Boris Johnson used to describe his approach to business. I am very worried that the combined impact of higher valuations and the new multipliers could put even more of our high street businesses in jeopardy, so I ask the Government to come clean and publish the combined data as soon as possible. I hope that a Minister can tell us—if not today, I hope that they will promise to come back to the House and do so—how many businesses have been brought into paying business rates for the first time, and how many might see their business rates go up overall. If the picture is bleak, I hope that the Government will tell us what actions they will take to protect the great British high street.
Small businesses also need action on energy support. Just last week, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I wrote to the Government asking Ministers to instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to launch an investigation into the lack of competition among energy suppliers, and into practices that we believe are preventing small businesses from getting the best energy deals. The Federation of Small Businesses is making the same call. This issue has to be fixed, and I hope that Ministers will look at it.
On income tax, the Government have broken their promise in all but name by freezing income tax thresholds for a further three years. This policy, started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour, means that in the tax year 2030-31, British taxpayers will pay an additional £67 billion in income tax to the Treasury. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that these stealth taxes are the largest single tax-raising measure since 1979. What will the result be? Well, the OBR says that disposable income—a byword for living standards—will go down, in large part due to this tax rise. Is it any wonder that people in all income brackets simply do not feel any better off?
Turning to the so-called mansion tax, we in this House all know that council tax is broken, but adding extra layers does not make it any fairer. Economists from left to right all agreed yesterday that the Government’s proposals are complicated and will cause bunching in the tax system. They are a messy compromise that does not raise very much money, and will raise none for around three years. These proposals could result in many appeals and could distort behaviour. This is not the way to fix property taxes. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury chunters from his seat. That was several Prime Ministers and several general elections ago. When the Liberal Democrats called for such a tax, the Conservatives wanted to stay in the EU; I think we can all agree that there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then. If the Government were serious about pursuing wealth, they could make a much fairer choice and go after the big banks and the tech giants.
On the tech giants, why did the Chancellor slip out a review of the digital services tax yesterday, without announcing it in the Budget? I think we all know the answer, but let me be plain: if the Government are gearing up to cut taxes for people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, while raising taxes on struggling households, that would be a massive betrayal. As for the dividend tax, the Federation of Small Businesses summed it up when it said that
“Hikes to dividend tax mean the government continues to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.”
Fundamentally, the root problem remains. This Budget, like last year’s Budget, is nothing more than a Treasury tax grab. The Government are still yet to outline a vision for the economy and for the country, and the lack of joined-up thinking is so stark. Last year they said that they were going for growth, and then they inflicted a growth-crushing jobs tax. This summer the Government’s own pension investment review said that four in 10 people are not saving enough for retirement, but now the Government have announced a measure that the OBR says will reduce pension contributions before the commission has even had a chance to report. This is a “spend now, pay later” Budget, with pension changes and other expensive additions pushed right to the end of the forecast. Clearly that is a way to buy time for some growth to emerge, but what happens if it does not?
The Government have had an opportunity to set out their path to delivering the change they promised, but I fear that they have squandered it. We Liberal Democrats wanted this to be a Budget that tackled the cost of living, that saved our high streets, and that was going to go for growth through a better deal with Europe. I am sorry to say that this Budget was botched; it was bungled; it was a missed opportunity. Whatever we call it, the bottom line is that this Budget does not deliver for the British people. I fear that the Government have run out of ideas. I fear that they are also running out of time.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Budget that cuts the cost of living for families in Rochdale, boosts apprenticeships, and helps the NHS and our public services—public services that were brought to their knees by 14 years of not just Tory cuts, but coalition cuts. This is a Budget that balances the books, with fairness at its heart, and it is also a Labour Budget that puts children at its heart. I want to focus, in particular, on the historic decision to lift the Tory two- child cap, a policy that has punished so many children in Rochdale and across the land, for the crime of simply being born.
As a journalist who worked up in the Press Gallery for 26 years, I reported on, reacted to and analysed Budgets over more than a quarter of a century. With any Budget, there is always talk of winners and losers, but when the two-child cap was introduced in 2016, the biggest losers were children. Think about that: children losing money because of the warped ideology that they were to blame for their parents’ poverty. I grew up on free school meals, so I know what it is like to be in a household where money is tight. Indeed, one of the reasons I stood for Parliament in the first place was to reverse the shocking rise in child poverty that occurred since 2010 under the last Tory Government, and particularly in Rochdale.
The decision to scrap the two-child cap would not have been possible without a Labour Government, but neither would it have happened without the many community groups and anti-poverty campaigners in each of our constituencies. Earlier this year in Rochdale we held a roundtable meeting on the Government’s child poverty strategy. It was a heartening gathering, because we in Rochdale are proud of the many things we do locally for our kids, from never closing Sure Starts—which was tough for the local council—to providing free breakfast clubs way ahead of any national roll-out, and giving kids a free lunch if they go to Saturday school.
However, our roundtable was also a sobering gathering, because despite everything we have done locally to combat poverty among toddlers and youngsters, many of the adults and campaigners there told us that the biggest problem was the national two-child cap, which has been a catastrophe for the incomes of many families on low pay or between jobs. I want to pay tribute to some of those campaigners and community workers in Rochdale: Jo Barker-Marsh, Aqub Nazir, Heather Madden and Nazrine Akhtar. Without their passion and commitment to helping our children, today would not have been possible.
I was not surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s rant about welfare yesterday. She repeated the Tory misinformation about the two-child cap, basing it on the myth that penalising larger families will somehow stop others from having a third or fourth child. As the Chancellor said yesterday, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made absolutely clear from the Dispatch Box today, there is no evidence that the two-child cap led to any change in family size. Why is that? It is because families have children for a whole host of reasons. Women certainly do not get pregnant to get more benefits. In fact, the real scandal in this country is that having children results in a substantial and long-lasting financial penalty for mothers, due to reduced earnings, unemployment and a lack of support. That is something this Government are addressing.
ONS research found that five years after the birth of a first child, a mother’s monthly earnings were, on average, 42% lower than they were one year before the birth. The important point to stress is this: people move in and out of work for a whole host of reasons beyond their control. Many people have had their third or fourth child before they lost the job, became ill or were widowed, disabled or had to care for a sick relative or a disabled child. There is a wider point, too, which is that welfare has become a pejorative term. We need to talk more about social security, a safety net that is there for families who fall on hard times through illness, redundancy and no fault of their own.
As has been said many times, more than six in 10 families on universal credit are in work. Many are on universal credit for only a few months until they can get back on their feet, or until their children are older, or they can sort proper childcare. No one in this party will defend the tiny minority who game the system, but the tabloid caricature of people lounging about on benefits is far removed from reality, particularly for parents. In the real world, many parents of kids in poverty go hungry themselves, rather than let their kids go without. Many cut back on essentials such as food and heating because they have to. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that the depth of hardship is particularly severe for families with three or more children, with around seven in 10 having to skip meals or go hungry.
Daisy Cooper
We Liberal Democrats welcome the decision by the Government to scrap the two-child benefit cap. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as it being the right thing to do, it saves taxpayers money in the long term? We know that poverty has lasting impacts on people’s health and educational outcomes. In making the case to the British public, it would be helpful if the Government could explain the longer-term impact that poverty has for the taxpayer.
Paul Waugh
That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out at the Dispatch Box earlier, talking about the positive case for this move on child poverty.
In Rochdale, we feel child poverty more keenly than anywhere. The statistics for my constituency after 14 years of Tory cuts are shocking. Relative poverty in Rochdale went up between 2014 and 2024 from 33% to 44.1%. That is one of the highest rates in the country. The Conservatives like to talk about relative poverty, but absolute poverty went up from 31% to 39%. The latest figures show that the total number of children in absolute poverty in Rochdale was 9,380 in 2024, but that 44% child poverty rate in Rochdale is just the average. The figures are even worse in individual areas such as Wardleworth, Kirkholt, Deeplish, Smallbridge, Firgrove and Freehold, where up to 60% of children live in absolute poverty. Those children were the collateral damage in a Tory attempt to get a political dividing line. How disgusting is that?
The idea of the deserving and undeserving poor is as old as the Victorian workhouse. We should banish it to the dustbin of history, just as we are banishing the pernicious two-child cap to the dustbin of history. In Rochdale, more than 5,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by this Budget. That is 5,000 future nurses, plumbers, engineers, carers, teachers, entrepreneurs and soldiers who will now be given the best start in life that they need to achieve their dreams and fulfil their potential.
The last Labour Government, which did so much to help children escape poverty, once had a new policy called Every Child Matters. By putting hundreds of pounds in the pockets of Rochdale families, this Budget shows that this Labour Government are restoring that moral mission as a national priority, sending out the message loud and clear that all kids count.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I will be picking up on some of the points he made later in my remarks, but I will start by characterising the whole Budget in the way that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which is that this was the “Nightmare Before Christmas” Budget. After last year’s Halloween Budget, another Budget has come back for more and more tax on the strivers, the entrepreneurs, the hard workers and the pensioners across our land.
In our scrutiny of the Budget as the Treasury Committee, we will be trying to draw out some of these decisions that the Chancellor announced yesterday from the Dispatch Box. It is clear that last year’s Halloween Budget was the biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history, and yesterday’s Budget was the third-biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history. It is an enormous burden that we have put on our country.
What we saw in the run-up to the Budget was also extraordinary, including the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report was leaked during Prime Minister’s questions. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means was rightly outraged about that on behalf of Parliament.
For the benefit of the House, I will outline the role that the Treasury Committee plays in relation to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It will appear before the Committee on Tuesday. We received a letter today from the chief executive, Richard Hughes, outlining the fact that he is undertaking an investigation. That has been published, but the House may not be aware that the Treasury Committee has a veto over the appointment of all three senior members of the Office for Budget Responsibility and, importantly, their dismissal. That is written into legislation. We take our responsibility to get to the bottom of what happened incredibly seriously, because on behalf of Parliament we have to find out.
There was a lot of skulduggery in the run-up to this Budget, with all these kites being flown by the Treasury. There was possibly speculation by the media, but all these ideas culminated on the morning of 4 November with the Chancellor breaking into the nation’s breakfast with her doom-laden pronouncements about the upcoming Budget. It was extraordinary and unprecedented, and it was rightly the subject of an urgent question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). After that, we had a story in the Financial Times on the evening of 13 November that moved the gilt market the minute it opened on the morning of the 14th. It was about the decision not to proceed with an income tax switch with national insurance.
Extraordinary skulduggery has been going on somewhere in the Treasury. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury responds to this debate later, he can provide clarity on the instructions that the Chancellor has given to the permanent secretary to do a full skulduggery investigation of the Treasury. It should not just be a leak inquiry, as something significantly more widespread has happened in the run-up to this Budget, and I do not think that Parliament can accept it. We need to draw a line under this behaviour, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Apparently the Chancellor herself said to Labour Back Benchers that this decision—that she would not have to increase income tax—was going to be the rabbit she would pull out of her hat at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
Some of the briefing that Treasury spokespeople did after this leak to the Financial Times related to the fact that the OBR had improved its economic forecasts, but we saw in its document yesterday that it had not changed its main economic forecasts since 31 October, so that cannot be right either. There has been some unbelievable leaking or briefing—“skulduggery” seems to sum it up—from Treasury special advisers, and the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility has been tainted. We as a Committee, on behalf of Parliament, take our responsibility in relation to the OBR incredibly seriously.
I want to highlight a couple of the measures in the Budget, and the first relates to productivity. Both Front Benchers mentioned the importance of focusing on productivity and the impact that the downward revision in productivity had on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, but everyone knows that this country’s private sector has continued to become more productive, whereas the problem with productivity in the public sector was very much exacerbated in the last Parliament and during the pandemic. Public sector productivity has still not recovered to the kinds of levels that we had before the pandemic. There is some incredible productivity scarring in our public sector, and I think it would be welcome if the Minister could outline from the Dispatch Box how the Government plan to tackle public sector productivity.
If productivity in the national health service returned to pre-pandemic levels, it would be worth £20 billion. Possibly all the tax rises in yesterday’s Budget could be removed if we got to that level of productivity again. I do not think that giving NHS doctors a 30% pay rise, with no requirement for them not to strike again, helps productivity. I do not think that the Government’s decisions align with getting better productivity out of our public sector, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to elaborate on that.
Finally, I will pick up on the powerful speech that the hon. Member for Rochdale made about child poverty. He will be aware that over the last 14 years, absolute child poverty—not in his constituency, but in aggregate across the country—has fallen. That is largely down to higher employment but also, importantly, more help with childcare. Those are important things to focus on in terms of people’s ability to work and to earn more.
Last week, the Treasury Committee asked experts what the child poverty line is in this country, and it is important for the House to understand the figures that we got back from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. After a household with two children and two adults have paid all their taxes and housing costs, the relative poverty line, which is what the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, is £24,650 a year. For a household with three children and two adults—again, after they have paid their taxes and housing costs—the figure is £28,176. We need to recognise that many people who will be caught by the tax rises in the Budget have much lower incomes than that. Widowers who have a small widow’s pension will pay more tax because of the decisions in yesterday’s Budget.
Paul Waugh
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady’s record in government and as the Chair of the Treasury Committee. She talks about tax rises. Does she accept that the bulk of the tax rises this Parliament—covering four of the five years—are Tory tax rises through the threshold freeze that she and her colleagues voted for?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am talking about yesterday’s Budget. The Chancellor herself announced that she was freezing the thresholds for a further three years, and I dare say that the hon. Gentleman will be asked to vote for that in the Aye Lobby next week. I disagree with him, because the Chancellor has just announced that the thresholds will be frozen for an additional three years.
Another person who will pay more tax as a result of the Chancellor’s decisions is a single young person on minimum wage. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the emigration statistics that were published today, which show that hundreds of thousands of our young people are fleeing this country. That is something that we should all be very concerned about.
A single mother who has just received a lump sum in a divorce settlement will pay more tax as a result of yesterday’s Budget. A sole trader or entrepreneur who runs a business and perhaps pays themselves in dividends will pay more tax as a result of yesterday’s Budget. A driver in my rural constituency who needs to drive to go to work will pay more tax because of yesterday’s Budget. We can see that the choices made by the Chancellor punish the employers, the farmers, the family businesses, the workers, the savers, the pensioners and the drivers—everyone who tries to do the right thing and tries not to be a burden on the state.
I will leave the House with one final point.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am looking forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech at the end of the debate, and I will not give way at the moment.
Given the skulduggery that the Treasury seems to have engaged in during the run-up to this Budget, the lingering impression will be that the spectre of further tax hikes looms. The floating of the income tax idea and all the other tax ideas, and all the taxes, will come back like a ghoul in Budgets to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. In an attempt to get everybody in today, I am going to put an immediate six-minute time limit on speeches.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am really pleased that the Chancellor has announced that the Government are clamping down on illegal high street activity—let us call it “shop a shop”. My constituents Stuart Evans and his son, who run a fish and chip shop in Gorseinon, have raised concerns that other high street shops are exploiting cash-only operations, so I welcome the additional funding to support stronger and more joined-up enforcement against those who break the rules. I am looking forward to changes to the legislative framework, which currently limits trading standards enforcement capabilities; in fact, I am going to meet trading standards officers in Swansea very soon.
I also welcome the removal of the two-child benefit cap and the abolition of the rape clause, because 1,270 children in Gower will benefit, with 450,000 lifted out of poverty nationally by the end of the decade. I thank the Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who is my constituency neighbour—for helping my constituents who used to work at the former 3M plant with the pre-1997 indexation issues that they had with their pensions.
I want to take this opportunity to raise a couple of other subjects that are very close to my heart, and I have had conversations with Front Benchers and the Chancellor regarding some of my concerns. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group— [Interruption.] I get all the fun gigs. We recently published a report following our inquiry into how brewing and pubs can help drive economic growth. I want to flag the report to the Minister, because it is really important. We have seen a change in the business rates, but we feel that the industry faces issues across many different departments. The sector is a key driver of local and national prosperity, and it plays such a crucial role in helping to get young people into jobs. That is why I think the apprenticeship stuff is really good, so I thank my Front Benchers for that. It is really key that we get young people working, create good jobs and revitalise our high streets, and I know that strengthening our communities is very much what we need to happen. I also welcome the reduction in energy costs.
I am going to keep my comments brief, but I want to bring up some issues in the Chamber. My Front Benchers know that my constituency is on the outskirts of Swansea. I have a large agricultural community, and I am really concerned about their wellbeing. No one in the agricultural community denies that we need to reform inheritance tax, and I genuinely welcome the small move that will help farmers—the spousal arrangements that allow widowers to transfer relief from their spouse—but the idea that farmers do not pay tax is nonsense; of course they do. However, that change does not address the impact on the elderly and terminally ill, and it also penalises divorced and single farmers. I gently urge those on the Front Bench and the Chancellor to look at the Finance Bill, consider the recommendations from my Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and look at potential Government amendments to move things to a better place.
If we can remove the anti-forestalling clause, especially for lifetime gifts, I will not be having phone calls and conversations with people in the agricultural community who may be thinking of taking their own lives before 6 April next year, because those are the conversations people are having with me and other MPs across these Benches. I urge the Government to think about that, because this community feeds us—it feeds our nation—and it needs to have the ear of the Chancellor.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and I agree with what she said about farmers. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Budget was an omnishambles. Not only have the Government being dripping leaks for the last month, which undermined market and business confidence, but the OBR, in error, yesterday published the Budget on its website 45 minutes before it was given at the Dispatch Box. This is unprecedented. The pound went down, and some of the hedge funds, which were already betting against the market, made millions. This does not provide confidence and stability in our public finances. It is undeniable that the financial position is much worse than it was when we were responding to the Budget last year.
Put simply, the Government are spending more than this country can afford. Last year, the Chancellor announced £40 billion in tax rises. We were promised that this would be a once-in-a-lifetime increase and would have filled the so-called black hole, so why has the Chancellor come back this year with another huge tranche— £26 billion—of tax rises? This tax burden will be equivalent to 38.3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament, and staggeringly, tax in this country is at an all-time record high. Interestingly, spending will go up now, but many taxes will not go up until 2028-29, around the time of the next election, so Labour MPs should take careful note of the measures that the Government introduced yesterday.
A growth rate of 1.5% per annum is lower than forecast, and growth per head is at the bottom of the G7 league. However, for the OBR to downgrade productivity rates to just 1% by 2029-30 is alarming, because it implies that growth will continue to flatline. Staggeringly, the chairman of the OBR has said that nothing—I repeat, nothing—in the Budget will score towards increased growth.
The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has been banging the drum for putting more money towards digital skills and the use of AI in all Departments and agencies. In the spring statement, most Departments were allocated more money for new technology. The PAC has heard time after time that old legacy IT equipment needs to be replaced, because new digital technology is needed to accommodate AI such as large learning models, and old analogue systems are much more prone to cyber-attacks.
Yet any improvements in efficiency are offset by the debt and the interest to service it. Last month, the UK national debt reached a staggering record £2.6 trillion, and the debt interest alone will be £136 billion a year by 2029-30. That would be the third largest Department if it were a Department, and it does not treat a single child or educate anybody.
One thing I can say about this Budget is that it is not discriminatory in whom it hurts. Working people, savers, pensioners, drivers, farmers, homeowners and businesses— I could go on—are all being taxed more to pay for this out-of-control spending. This is not a Budget for working people; it is a Budget to pay for the massive increase in the welfare state. Indeed, as a stark example, the Government announced yesterday that they would increase the help to save scheme for universal credit claimants, which of course is tax-free, whereas ordinary working taxpayers will see the tax on their savings increase by 2%. Where is the fairness in that? The OBR has forecast that the welfare state is going to rise by a staggering £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion over the next five years.
One aspect of the economy at the moment is that the unemployment rate has increased to 5.1%. At the end of last year, it was 4.3%. Sadly, we now have 1.79 million people out of work, and I suspect that everything announced in the Budget yesterday will only increase that figure. As I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, what is really sad about those figures is that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds is nearly 5%.
On the two-child benefit cap, in April 2025 there were 37,020 households in the UK on universal credit with exactly five children and an additional 18,260 households with six or more children. As a father, I know how much it costs to bring up children. It is the best decision I ever made, but I know the costs associated with childcare. Many parents up and down this country, including my constituents, are taking tough decisions about not having any more children, and they are paying out more and having to work harder to afford their existing children. Where is the fairness in this system?
Paul Waugh
What would happen if the hon. Gentleman had three or four children, and he were to fall ill or had to care for a sick child? Would he want those children to suffer from that plight?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
It is always possible to find cases that are very difficult to deal with. In government, we have to make decisions about the totality of the population. I think it is up to parents on benefits to think very carefully about how many children they have and the circumstances in which they may find themselves.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
No, I have already given way once on this subject.
Our wealth creating sector is shrinking, whereas the public sector is ballooning, yet the Government’s policies are punishing businesses and wealth creators. The freezing of tax thresholds is a tax rise, as the Chancellor has confirmed many times at the Dispatch Box, but she has now confirmed that they will be frozen for another three years. Every time they are frozen, that brings more people into the tax net. In this case, it is forecast to bring another 750,000 into the tax net. The 2% increase on savings and dividends is another penalisation of those working hard to save their money. Where are the incentives to save money if the Government are taking more of their savings?
Finally, hospitality businesses are going to be hit hard by this Budget. In North Cotswolds, they are at the heart of the community, yet nationally one pub is closing its doors every day at the moment. I do not see any pub landlords welcoming this Budget—
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and a great pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. I direct Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This is the second of what will be many Labour Budgets that will help this country to rebuild our public services, rebuild our public finances and bring down the monumental national debt. That is all at the heart of delivering long-term economic sustainability, growth and fairness, which is our great task after 14 years of Tory and Lib Dem mismanagement. I want to speak about the two issues closest to my heart as the MP for Exeter—the start-up and scale-up economy, and child poverty in Exeter.
Today, over 1,000 start-ups are active across the south-west region, and our start-ups are growing not just in volume, but in value. The average venture-backed start-up in the south-west is now worth £11 million. Moreover, five of the UK’s top 50 start-up constituencies by funds raised are in the south-west: Bristol Central, Filton and Bradley Stoke, Bristol East, Bath and, indeed, Exeter. That amounts to 10% of the national total in a region that is too often overlooked.
What is most exciting is what comes next. Half of our start-ups are at the seed stage, brimming with ideas and ambition. These are the major employers and major innovators of the future. These are the businesses that will supercharge Exeter’s economy and help deliver economic sustainability and prosperity. That is why I was really pleased to see changes in the Budget that will support new businesses in my constituency to start up and then to scale up, helping them to raise capital, attract talent and stay competitive here in the UK.
First, the significant expansion of the investment limits for both the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trusts means that from April 2026 companies will be able to raise much larger sums, with annual limits doubling to £10 million and lifetime limits rising to £24 million, and even higher thresholds for knowledge-intensive companies. That means that more ambitious ideas can be funded right here in Britain, particularly in sectors such as green engineering, AI, biotechnology and fintech—the sectors that will power the next decade of economic leadership in this country.
Secondly, the Budget strengthens one of the most powerful tools for fast-growing firms: the ability to attract and retain the skilled people who make innovation happen. By expanding the enterprise management incentive scheme—increasing the employee headcount eligibility to 500, and raising the asset and share option limits—we will ensure that starters can continue to offer meaningful equity to their teams as they grow. This gives scaling companies the firepower to compete with big employers to keep talent in the UK, and to ensure that workers share in the success they help create.
Together, the reforms send a strong signal that Britain backs bold entrepreneurs. We want the next global success stories to start, scale and stay right here in the UK and in Exeter. Indeed, just today one of my contacts in the start-up world said that entrepreneurship was at the heart of the Budget in a way that has never been seen before.
I want everyone in Exeter, no matter their upbringing, to know that they can achieve their potential by working in start-ups, scale-ups, or elsewhere in the economy and public services. That is why I was pleased that the Budget rightly put fairness at the heart of our national mission. Nowhere is that mission more urgent than in the fight against child poverty. Child poverty is not a statistic on a page. It is children in Exeter whose parents are going without meals so that they can eat. It is a family making impossible choices—heating or food, rent or clothes. As one of five children who grew up in a council house, I know what it is like when every penny counts. Nationally, more than 2.7 million children were living in poverty last year, which is 22% of all 0 to 15-year-olds. That is more than one in five children across the UK. We all recognise that that is not only unsustainable, but morally indefensible and a catastrophic consequence of 14 years of Tory and coalition government.
In Exeter today, around 3,000 children aged 0 to 15 live in relative poverty. That is 19.9% of all our children—one in five. Earlier this year, I convened a local roundtable in Exeter with charities, schools, housing providers and health leaders, and we asked the hard questions. Where are families slipping through the gaps? How do we redesign support so that children are not left paying the price of economic insecurity? The message was clear: child poverty is family poverty. It is not isolated to any one Department. It cuts across the housing system, the labour market, childcare and education. It affects health, mental wellbeing and lifetime opportunity.
I am proud that this Government are not looking away. We are tackling the barriers that families face head-on, right across the Government, through the expansion of free school meals, funded childcare and beyond. That is why I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap—a long-overdue change that will raise 450,000 children out of poverty. But I know that we will go further, which is why I have been engaging with Ministers on the creation of the child poverty strategy, so that we take a whole-Government approach that tackles the causes and not just the symptoms, because simply raising benefits is not enough. I want every child in Exeter to break away from intergenerational poverty, and to succeed and fulfil their potential in life through their own work and achievements.
We have already started the process of rebuilding hope and opportunity for young people. I have spoken before in this Chamber about the gutting of Sure Start, which was one of the most transformational programmes of the previous Labour Government. I am delighted that we are restoring Sure Start-style services in communities across the country: evidence-led family-centred support that helps children keep thriving from the very beginning. For my city, these services are not an optional extra; they are foundational. If we want children to arrive at school ready to learn, healthy, safe and confident, this is how to do it.
The Budget recognises that fairness is not something that trickles down; it is something we build. Exeter children need us to build it now. They waited too long under the last Government, who simply failed a whole generation. We must ensure that the circumstances a child is born into never limit the life they are able to lead. I am therefore proud to support the Budget, and proud that the Government are choosing to put our children first.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The theme of today’s debate is fairer choices, so I want to look at whether the choices made yesterday really were fairer.
On energy bills, I welcome the removal of the main green levies from electricity bills. They created a perverse disincentive to switching away from gas, at a time when we need people to do so to decarbonise heating. That causes particular hardship in a rural constituency like mine, where a significant number of households are off-gas. However, I note that it is only a temporary move, with the Resolution Foundation saying that £55 is set to be added back to energy bills in 2029-30. I urge the Chancellor to look carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposals to reduce energy bills by half by 2035. I also flag to the Chancellor that constituents in off-gas areas have raised concerns about what they see as the unfair tax treatment of lower carbon fuels, which they see as a more realistic option for reducing their carbon emissions in the short term.
Is the Budget fairer for businesses? Businesses across my constituency are struggling, as they face a dangerous mix of higher costs and lower consumer spending. Before the Budget, the Liberal Democrats called for an emergency 5p cut to VAT for hospitality, accommodation and attractions to help those businesses stay afloat, and also to help people to afford the occasional treat to enjoy. It is something that businesses across my constituency have called for recently, and it would have helped attractions as varied as Bristol Zoo Project, The Wave and Dyrham Park, as well as hotels, pubs and restaurants across the constituency. However, the Chancellor ignored our calls while also failing to introduce a fair reform of business rates to ensure that those businesses can continue to grow and thrive long into the future.
Is the Budget fairer for children with special educational needs and disabilities? The last Conservative Government left councils facing huge pressures. The best way to fix that is to address the black hole caused by the crises in social care and SEND provision, but what the Chancellor announced yesterday failed to give the clarity that is desperately needed on the existing SEND deficit. My own council of South Gloucestershire, of which I was the leader until I was elected to this place, has long grappled with historic underfunding and rising demand for SEND support. It is one of the f40 group of the lowest-funded authorities and one of those that entered into safety valve agreements because of those rising deficits. We need clarity on what will happen to those historic deficits after the Government take this in-house.
Were the choices in the Budget fairer for my constituency and the wider south-west? While the Chancellor did remember that the south-west exists this year, the Budget did little more than that. Where is the support for our rural transport? Where is the support for our farmers, who travelled to Westminster yesterday to plead for the Chancellor’s support? For the last year, I have been helping their campaign to reverse the damaging change to farmers’ inheritance tax. Where is the support for our communities facing river and surface water flooding? This is an issue I have raised repeatedly here in Parliament, including in last year’s Budget debate. At least £13 billion will go to mayoral strategic authorities, but not to the West of England. We were also excluded from the new £912 million local growth fund. The decision to extend business rates retention was a small crumb of comfort for authorities such as South Gloucestershire, but extending it does not mean that councils can rely on existing funding for the scheme continuing, thanks to re-baselining.
To conclude, I urge the Chancellor to talk to MPs of all parties in the south-west and to give our region the support we deserve.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I rise to welcome the Budget, because despite the difficult economic times we are in, the Chancellor has made decisions that are strong, sound and fair. It is a strong budget that more than doubles the fiscal headroom to £22 billion. It is a sound budget that improves the economic efficiency of some of our taxes and maintains our capital investment in the country’s future. It is a fair budget that lowers the cost of living, saving us money on rail fares and energy bills, and raising half a million children out of poverty.
First, on the headroom, this Chancellor has the strength to do what previous Chancellors have shied away from doing. Headroom is important to buffer us from the volatility in the global economy. It buffers us against shocks that we cannot predict. I am glad to see that the Chancellor has also followed the International Monetary Fund’s recommendations to assess the fiscal rules annually, which will improve the predictability of policymaking.
Yesterday during the Budget debate, the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), accepted my intervention. I asked why he had left us with the lowest headroom in the history of the OBR. He said that he did not raise more headroom because he would have had to cut spending or raise taxes, and he was not prepared to do those things. I therefore take it with a pinch of salt when the shadow Chancellor says in this debate that suddenly they have dreamt up plans in the past 12 months in opposition, when they did not have such plans in 14 years of governing. The response of the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash was that he was not prepared to do the things that were necessary. That is like someone saying to their flatmate that they did not do the washing up because they would have had to tidy up and get their hands wet, and they were not prepared to do those things. He took the weak option. He shied away from making important economic decisions—he left us with his dirty plates—and is now lecturing us about making difficult choices.
I am glad of the right hon. Gentleman’s honesty, and his acceptance of my intervention, because it shows us a deeper truth: the previous Tory Government could not cut further, because they had already cut everything they could, and then some, leaving us with courts backlogged for years, prisons overflowing and child poverty at its highest this century.
Secondly, this is an economically sound Budget. Different forms of income should not be taxed differently. This is not just about fairness; it is about economic incentives. Landlords should not pay lower effective rates of tax than their tenants, and those who can afford an accountant should not be able to benefit from structuring their income as dividends, thereby paying a lower rate of tax. I welcome the raising of rates on property savings and dividends to make them closer to the rates paid on earned income, reducing the bad incentives to restructure income for tax avoidance. The tax system is not just about raising funds for public services; it is about shaping the economy and building in the right incentives to encourage productive behaviour.
I am glad that the Chancellor will reform the system of enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes and review the tax system’s impact on entrepreneurs. I meet many of them in my constituency in Reading, which is a brilliant place for companies on all scales, from university spin-outs to world-leading giants. We have a particular concentration in life sciences, pharmaceuticals and IT services—services the OBR might be able to benefit from. Whether I am visiting Oxford Quantum Circuits in Thames Valley science park or a blockbuster film set at Shinfield Studios, I see my constituents building the British industries of the future, and when I visit schools, I encourage the schoolchildren to dream big and to take their share of that future.
But what of those children? The previous Conservative Government put 700,000 more children into poverty. Almost one in three children are growing up in relative poverty. That is the highest this figure has been this century. In Earley and Woodley, which is easily in the richest fifth of all constituencies in the UK, I get letters from parents who cannot feed their children during the half-term holidays. Because of the Chancellor’s Budget, 1,750 children in my constituency will be lifted out of poverty.
The hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said that it was possible to find “cases” of people falling into poverty. I would urge him to look at the figures. Poverty can befall anyone. According to “Understanding Society”, the largest longitudinal household panel study we have, the poverty entry rate—those who start off above relative poverty one year and find themselves impoverished the next—is around 8%, which means that one in 12 of our constituents could, in any given year, find themselves suddenly in dire straits. That could be because of divorce, bereavement, illness, bad health or bad luck, and that is what the social security system is for.
Some 70% of children growing up in poverty are in working families. There is something wrong with an economy that produces these outcomes. That is why it is important that this Government are raising the minimum wage and giving workers more power to negotiate their terms in the workplace. At the same time as fixing the foundations, we have to put out the fire on the roof, because poverty is an urgent challenge; if we do not address it now, it threatens to burn the house down.
We speak a lot about the post-pandemic cohort of young people who are not in employment, education or training, but why are there so many? This is the austerity generation. New evidence published yesterday by the Work and Pensions Committee shows that individuals exposed to multiple instances of childhood adversity, such as poverty and poor parental health, were five times more likely to be NEET. An estimated 53% of NEET cases today are attributable to persistent poverty and family adversity. Our children are the future of our economy; we have to invest in them and in our future. That is why I am proud to support a sound, strong and fair Budget.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
This Labour Government came to power with so many promises. The Chancellor promised to kick-start economic growth, and not to increase the taxes of working people. Now that Labour is in government, I am afraid that it is doing the exact opposite. If it can be taxed, the Chancellor will tax it—an electric car, a holiday, or even a taxi home after a night out. I am afraid that the Chancellor and those on the Government Benches are completely out of touch on how the economy works.
The statistics speak for themselves. Unemployment has surged across the United Kingdom: 19% more people are without a job since this Labour Government came to power, and almost 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality. The Government inherited inflation that was bang on the Bank of England’s targets; now, it has almost doubled. That is why there is a cost of living crisis out there in the real world. Economic growth is going in the wrong direction; forecasts have been revised downward next year, and are predicted to be lower in every remaining year of this Parliament. That is this Chancellor’s record and her legacy.
In advance of this Budget, there was wild speculation about what the Chancellor would present and endless rumours of more tax rises—kite flying by the Treasury. How can we expect any business to plan or invest for the future if the rules of the game continue to shift in this way? Of course, the situation is a whole lot worse in Scotland, where the SNP Government have made us the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom.
I will focus my speech on two choices that this Labour Government made in the Budget. The first is the family farm tax. Yesterday I met farmers from across the United Kingdom who came to protest against this Labour Government’s decision to introduce the family farm tax. I was disappointed that I did not see many, if indeed any, Labour Members taking the time to speak to the farmers outside Parliament. I was utterly disgusted at the last-minute cancellation by the Metropolitan police—perhaps this Government were involved, too—of the farmers’ rally in Whitehall yesterday.
Farmers are devastated by the Chancellor’s decision not to reverse this cruel tax. It is not that they do not want to pay their fair share; they already do, and they are a vital part of our economy, protecting our countryside, rural communities and food security. They simply cannot afford to pay it. I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is sadly not in her place just now, but who highlighted very clearly the anguish facing many farmers, not just in her constituency, but in mine and across the United Kingdom. I deeply regret the fact that Ministers have their hands over their ears, and are refusing to listen to the plight of our farmers.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend is delivering a searing indictment of this Budget. Does he agree that the intention of the farm tax may have been to take in multimillionaire so-called “slipper farmers”, but in rural constituencies like his and mine, it is hitting tenant farmers?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The intention may have been to force overseas investors, trust funds and others out of the farming sector, and to attack big landowners, but the tax is doing the complete opposite: it is destroying the family farm sector, forcing tenant farmers out, and seriously impacting on our food security ambitions.
The family farm tax is yet another promise broken by the Chancellor, who gave no indication before the last election that Labour would introduce it. The supermarkets agree: Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer and many more have expressed their concern about how the tax will impact farmers and our nation’s capacity to produce our own food. I grew up on a farm, so I understand this. The consequences of the Chancellor’s failure to reverse this cruel tax will be catastrophic for our rural communities.
Two weeks ago, I visited dozens of small businesses across the Scottish Borders—corner shops, greengrocers, butchers, manufacturers, gift shops and many more. The same issue came up at almost every single one: the extremely tough business conditions just now. The jobs tax is forcing many of them to delay hiring decisions, or even lay off staff, and the additional red tape is forcing good employers to jump through totally unnecessary hoops. The average cost of a member of staff has surged by almost £1,000 a month, thanks to the jobs tax and the Government’s Employment Rights Bill. To make matters worse, because of the state of the economy, customers have less to spend on goods and services. It is all adding up to be an economic nightmare.
The Chancellor’s decisions are pushing our economy into a tax doom loop: higher taxes will fund more spending, which harms our economic growth and— surprise, surprise—means that the Chancellor receives lower revenue, and so once again comes back to ask for more tax rises.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I entirely endorse the argument that my hon. Friend is making. The big punishment in yesterday’s Budget was the increase in taxation on dividends. That says to our wealth creators and entrepreneurs—the people who create jobs—“Don’t bother.”
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Budget creates no incentives for people to invest and take the risk of setting up and growing a business. It sends out all the wrong messages about what we want in a country that has traditionally been full of entrepreneurs. Because of the doom loop that the Chancellor has created, it will always be hard-working businesses and families who pay the price for her economic failure.
The Chancellor could have made much better choices in her Budget. She could have saved £47 billion, including £23 billion from welfare, avoiding the need to increase taxes in this way altogether. She could have introduced a cheap power plan to bring down energy costs for homes and businesses. But the Chancellor has not listened. She has not learned from the mistakes she made in last year’s Budget. This Labour Government promised economic stability, but this Budget does nothing to make that a reality, which is why Conservative Members oppose it so strongly.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Budget that the Chancellor delivered yesterday set the course for a fairer Britain, founded on a stronger, more resilient economy. It will make a real difference to people in my constituency. It tackles head-on the cost of living crisis, which has had such a terrible impact on so many. The origin of much of the crisis lies with Conservative Members, who oversaw devastating austerity policies, a blundering Brexit and a Liz Truss-sponsored economic crash.
In contrast, the Chancellor was clear about her mission to build a stronger, fairer and more secure economy. She was clear that we will not go back to austerity, and that we will not pass the debt burden on to the next generation. Instead, we will tackle the cost of living pressures head-on with targeted and funded interventions to deliver support where it is most needed. The theme of today’s debate is key to that; it is only through economic sustainability and by making fair choices that we can deliver a better Britain.
First, I did not hear Conservative Members welcome the choice we made to tackle the cost of living and put more money in people’s pockets. We have cut £150 off the average energy bill. Prescription charges have been frozen, and rail ticket prices have been frozen for the first time in 30 years. My constituents who take the train from Norwich to London on an annual season ticket will save around £600 a year. This Labour Government are bringing down everyday costs for working people.
Secondly, I want to talk about the fair choices being made that deliver for children and young people. During Parliament Week last week, I visited Thorpe St Andrew sixth form. There were some excellent questions asked, and many students asked me about jobs, opportunity and making work pay fairly. There were also questions about the minimum wage. I welcome the increase to wages, which was recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. The national minimum wage for workers aged 18 to 20 will go up by 8.5%, and for under-18s and apprentices, it will go up by 6%. Overall, the national living wage will go up by 4.1%.
Alongside that, I welcome the investment of £820 million in the youth guarantee, which guarantees anyone out of work or study for more than 18 months a paid job. This Labour Government are delivering a stable economy for the next generation, fair pay, opportunity and lower national debt.
Approximately a third of children in Norwich live in poverty. Their chances in life, and whether they go to school with a coat on and a full belly, should not depend on the circumstances of their birth or how many siblings they have. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish the Conservatives’ cruel two-child benefit cap. This move will lift out of poverty 1,900 children in my constituency, 4,000 children across the whole of Norwich and 450,000 children nationally. As many Members have mentioned, we must remember that the majority of children affected by this policy are in families in which one parent works. Removing the cap is not only the right thing to do for our children, but in all our interests, because making children poorer costs us and damages our economy in the long term.
I am also proud that we are abolishing the horrendous rape clause. No longer will women be forced to undergo the humiliation of proving that their child was born as a result of rape in order to receive extra support. Children should not pay the price of political choices, and this Labour Government will make sure that they do not.
Turning to public services, I welcome the announcement of 250 new NHS neighbourhood health centres; it builds on the 5.2 million extra NHS appointments that we have already delivered. I will work hard to make sure that we get one in Norwich North. Fixing the NHS is one of the biggest priorities for my constituents, and I know that the Government will continue to focus on that.
The east of England is a brilliant place to live, work and do business. Indeed, the recent “Opportunity East” report highlighted that our region is a powerhouse of national growth, generating £214 billion in gross value added annually, and receiving nearly £10 billion of private research and development investment each year. There are many excellent businesses there of all shapes and sizes, as well as entrepreneurs and start-ups, including those based at the Norwich research park, so I welcome the measures in the Budget to back entrepreneurs and start-ups. I also welcome the investment that we have already seen in our region. The historic investment in Sizewell C will create jobs and opportunities for the whole region and, indeed, the country.
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced billions in flexible funding for seven mayors to invest in their areas. Given that Norfolk and Suffolk is to elect a mayor next year, I urge the Government to continue this approach, and to back local growth and local leaders. As the Chancellor said, the benefits of investment and growth must be felt in every corner of our country.
In conclusion, the Budget starkly contrasts with what we saw under the Conservatives, when living standards for many of my constituents in Norwich North fell. The Chancellor has set out a Budget that is about creating a fairer future for everyone, and that builds stability for Britain today, and for Britain’s tomorrow. It is sad that many Conservative Members reject the choices that we have made. We reject austerity, decline and unfairness. We want a future in which workers are paid fairly, people can pay their bills, we take action to end child poverty for good, everyone can see a doctor when they are sick, and we have a strong and sustainable economy for generations to come. That is the future that I have been fighting for since I was elected, and will continue to fight for.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will start by welcoming a few of the measures in the Budget. I was contacted yesterday by the Pension Protection Fund about the indexation of pre-1997 pensions. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) fought hard for this on the Pension Schemes Bill Committee, and I spoke about it on a number of occasions, so I am pleased that this change is being made. I think it will make a real difference to the oldest and poorest pensioners who are covered by the Financial Services Authority.
I want to talk about the two-child benefit cap. Alison Thewliss, previously my colleague, who fought very hard to get the rape clause removed, is delighted that this change is being made. The SNP has worked incredibly hard on this, not just over the course of this Parliament, in which we have moved two votes in the House specifically on the two-child benefit cap, but in previous Parliaments, because we know that it is the most cost-effective way of taking children out of poverty. In fact, yesterday in Scotland we tabled measures to mitigate the two-child cap in Scotland from next year. Thankfully we will no longer have to mitigate that policy, because the UK Government have agreed to do it.
We are pleased that this has happened and are very glad that the Government have caught up. However, I point out that it has taken some time, and about 100 children a day have been pushed into poverty as a result of keeping the cap in place. I invite Labour Members to reflect on the fact that a number of their colleagues were suspended for supporting my party in our move to scrap the two-child benefit cap. If it is the right thing to do today to get children out of poverty, it was the right thing to do then.
Turning to the total welfare bill, I have heard of a number of people—particularly from parties that are further to the right—talking on the radio about the growth of the total welfare bill and the fact that by the end of the forecast period it will reach £406 billion. The growth that is happening is about £91.5 billion, and almost half of that —£44 billion, which is 48%—is in pensions alone. I do not think it is right to couple those two things together when talking about the growth of the welfare bill. I understand that people do, and that the Red Book and Blue Book also couple them together. However, when people who say that we should get the welfare bill down talk about this £406 billion figure, they really need to be clear that half of that increase is in pensions. It is because we have the pensions triple lock and an increase in the number of pensioners.
Looking at the OBR’s figures in the fiscal risks report that was published in July, out to 2070 there is a significant increase in the percentage of GDP going to pensioners—from 5% to 7.7% by 2070. I am aware that it is quite a way in the future, but we need to be clear that, because of the growing number of older people, and the fact that they are living longer, there is an increase in the number of pensioners. Therefore, there is an increase in the amount we are spending on pensions. It is right for the Government to have to justify why they are increasing the welfare bill, but talking about that entire £406 billion figure as an increase in the welfare bill is not the right way to go about it, if that is what we are looking to tackle.
There are a couple of things more that I want to raise. With regard to energy prices and the cost of living generally, on coming into power, the Labour Government promised a £300 reduction in energy prices. Even with the Chancellor’s changes, we have seen a continued increase in the cost of energy. In fact, even with a £150 rebate, there will be more money on energy bills for the average family than when the Labour Government came into power. The SNP put forward a proposal in advance of the Budget talking about a bank levy similar to one that was introduced previously, specifically to pay £300 to billpayers to ensure that that Labour promise was met.
We still believe that the cost of living is too high. Let us look at the current 4.9% level of food inflation. It is impossible not to buy food; everybody has to buy food, just like they have to pay for energy. People can avoid taking foreign holidays and they can avoid buying a car, but they cannot avoid buying food and paying for their homes to be heated. Those inflation figures are therefore key and important.
Lastly, as hon. Members would expect, I will talk about the energy profits levy and oil and gas. Yesterday, alongside the Budget, the North sea future plan was published, and that entire document includes one mention of the energy profits levy and just when it talks about responses to surveys. Not once in that entire document do the Government mention the energy profits levy. I receive emails from people about oil and gas and the just transition, and the energy profits levy is the key measure that is causing a thousand jobs a month to be lost. If economic growth really is the Government’s key priority, they need to look at the energy profits levy, and they need to do so before 2030. My constituents are losing their jobs and that economic growth is failing as a result of this UK Government’s policies.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Had our productivity grown at the same rate as media speculation, the UK would have been in a much stronger fiscal position ahead of the Budget. All the more credit is due, then, to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for delivering a Budget for working people, lifting children out of poverty and equipping our economy to grow, at the same time as delivering a master class at the Dispatch Box.
There was another performance that was, well, magical in its way: that of the Conservative Members. They have managed to forget their economic vandalism, their fiscal incompetence and their social sabotage, and pretend that the UK’s economic situation is nothing to do with them, even as the OBR downgraded its productivity forecasts to reflect their past productivity failures. It is like some Westminster edition of “The Bourne Identity” without Matt Damon—well, perhaps the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), thinks he is Matt Damon—but with a whole political party that wakes up not knowing where it has been for the past 15 years. But the north remembers, and particularly the north-east.
We are a great and vibrant region, and the engine of the industrial revolution. It was growing up in Newcastle, surrounded by the legacy of great Geordie engineers and inventors, in a culture that championed making and building things, that inspired me to become an engineer. But the wealth created by our region’s industrious workforce has not been enjoyed by us. Despite having world-leading companies and research institutions, the north-east now has the lowest GDP per head in the UK, at £28,000. Every region in the country is below the national average of £39,000, except the south-east at £41,000 and London at a whopping £69,000.
The Conservatives responded to the global financial crisis with the economic equivalent of leeches, with sustained austerity resulting in the slow strangulation of the economy and my constituents’ wages. Annual earnings for full-time employees in the north-east fell during that time and, despite Tory talk of levelling up, we see the same regional disparities in labour productivity, which is also, indirectly, a measure of capital investment, both physical and human. If we could just lift the north-east’s per capita GDP to the national average, it would increase UK GDP by over 1%, which is almost the same GDP growth as we had for the entire country in 2024. That is why the Chancellor chose to turn her back on Conservative austerity and make the tough decisions necessary to invest.
Let me focus on just two areas, science and social justice, which are the twin passions of my personal politics. As a Geordie and as Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I am delighted to see the new £30 million facility in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), which will accelerate the development of novel RNA—ribonucleic acid—therapies from labs to market to tackle cancer, heart conditions and infectious diseases. I am also excited by the Budget measures to support innovative businesses to grow and investors to invest beyond the start-up phase.
My Committee’s inquiry into regional innovation and growth heard wide-ranging evidence that disparities in investment, access to capital, skills, infrastructure and integration of universities and local economies all need to be addressed if we are to ensure that our regions benefit from Britain’s scientific strengths. Unfortunately, the inquiry also revealed an enduring complacency and lack of regional focus in many Whitehall Departments. I urge the Chancellor to go further to address the barriers to regional growth, and I particularly echo the hope of our regional mayor, Kim McGuinness, to see more infrastructure investments in the coming months.
The last Government’s record on social justice stained our nation, with children growing up in households where heating and eating were daily sources of stress. Cutting £150 from the average household energy bill, extending the warm home discount to a further 3 million of the poorest households, expanding free school meals and breakfast clubs and improving nutrition will make a real difference to young lives and cut the cost of living for my constituents. The Chancellor’s high-value council tax surcharge will also go some way to righting the ridiculous situation of a family in a band D home in Newcastle paying more council tax than someone in a £10 million property in Westminster.
Finally, the decision to scrap the two-child limit will change for the better the lives of 4,960 children in my constituency alone and put almost £7 million back in the pockets of local families. It is an honour and a privilege to support a Labour Chancellor delivering a Labour Budget in the interests of every region and of every working person in this country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), but I am afraid that I have to disagree with what she has said this afternoon. I am sorry to say that this Budget will not improve the lives of my constituents in Romford, who are hard-working people who pay their taxes and contribute to society and who do not want the state to take money out of their pockets in the way this Government are doing.
The people of Romford are market traders, small businessmen, shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, City workers and company directors. They are the kind of people who will set their alarms early each day to get up for work to earn an honest living to support their families. Yet this Budget will hold my constituents back, stifle growth, increase the burden on hard-working families and demonstrate what seems to be a complete disregard by the Chancellor for supporting the genuine aspirations of the British people.
The Government are taxing people beyond that which is reasonable or sustainable, while showing no serious attempt to reduce the size of the state, cut back the over-bloated public sector or get people off a life of benefits and back to work. This Budget has radically increased taxes on working people and the freezing of the income tax threshold is, I am sorry to say, nothing but an underhand method of taking yet more tax from my constituents. In fact, 800,000 pensioners will be put into the 40% tax bracket. Pensioners in my constituency will be poorer, and I can tell the Minister that they will resent that.
The tax burden is now the highest it has been since the second world war, and my constituents will rightly ask what they are getting in return for this additional payment to the state. The truth is Britain is spending way beyond its means, and our Government appear incapable of making the serious cuts that are essential to restore our finances. The Conservative Government before should have done a lot more as well, but this Government are compounding the problem and making things far worse. If we carry on taxing and spending like this, our economy will continue to fall into a downward spiral. We need a radical change of approach, or I fear Britain will face bankruptcy.
Margaret Thatcher rebuilt our economy in the 1980s based on sound money, living within our means, cutting taxes for hard-working people, reducing the size of Government, reforming the labour market and making it flexible, curtailing the power of the trade unions, abolishing exchange controls, and creating an enterprise culture that generated prosperity and incentivised wealth creators for many years to come. That approach led to decades of economic prosperity, which was inherited by the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown only for it to be mucked up by their Labour policies, leaving the Conservatives to start to rebuild the economy once more.
The first woman Prime Minister got it right, and the first woman Chancellor of the Exchequer should now take a leaf out of Mrs Thatcher’s book. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Chancellor to freeze rail fares and give bumper pay rises to the public sector while raising taxes to the highest level in living memory to pay for them. This is economic illiteracy. Then, there are the millions for electric vehicles, representing yet more subsidies for the green agenda and more money thrown at the failed ECOS—employee car ownership schemes—experiment. The British people are no longer willing to fuel the fantasy of net zero to the detriment of our British industry. This is not economic ambition; this is an ideological obsession which now has little support. My constituents of Romford have no time for the net zero agenda any more. They can see that it is only making Britain poorer, with much pain for little gain.
The Government’s social engineering taxes are without doubt what Winston Churchill described as the philosophy of envy. VAT on private schools has added additional pressure to the state sector and has been the cause of the closure of large numbers of private schools. It has been so harmful to children and to the standing and success of our education system at home and abroad. The family farm tax is another example of how the Government’s policies are causing misery and harm to our rural communities and to families who for generations have farmed the land to feed the nation. It should be cancelled, and the Government should apologise to our farmers.
We now have a new wealth tax disguised as a levy on property, which represents a dagger to the heart of private property. This is an attack on the very notion of ownership. The truth is we have a massively bloated welfare state, and I have no confidence that the Labour Government will seriously tackle that issue. It is time to get back to common sense and sound economic management, so let us remember what Margaret Thatcher achieved for our country.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I welcome a number of the announcements in the Chancellor’s Budget addressing the issues affecting my constituents’ lives. Despite the challenging headwinds facing the Exchequer, the Chancellor decided to protect the £120 billion of additional capital investment she set out at the spending review and introduced measures to ease cost of living pressures. Balancing the books by reducing capital spending would be to dismantle growth. The north cannot afford that if the productivity of our major cities like Newcastle is to catch up with European peers.
News on the cost of living is also welcome, with the average family due to save £234 next year from energy support and fuel duty measures. The decision to freeze rail fares and prescription charges will be a sigh of relief for families up and down the country, and I also support the 4.8% increase to the state pension in line with our commitment to the triple lock. On social security, I am delighted by the decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap. This progressive Labour choice builds on the work the Government are already doing on child poverty—the roll-out of universal breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals and now the removal of what has been a moral stain on Britain for the past eight years. The Tories reacted with anger; I welcome it wholeheartedly for the 2,940 children in my constituency who will be impacted positively by the measure.
I commend the Chancellor for the steps she has taken on taxing profits made by gambling firms. Remote gambling is associated with the greatest levels of harm. For some, it is not entertainment; it is a rapid decline into addiction, mental health struggles and debt. Yesterday the Government struck the right balance. Land-based gambling is lower stakes and takes place in a more regulated and social environment. The sector is a source of investment for our high streets, which have been beleaguered for a number of years. I am also pleased that those high streets will be supported by the introduction of permanently lower business rates for eligible properties —the lowest tax rates for more than three decades.
While I welcome the introduction of maintenance grants for disadvantaged students, I hope the Government will listen to the higher education sector’s concerns about the proposed international student levy. According to the Office for Students, 45% of universities are set to report a deficit this year. Diverting international tuition revenue at such a fragile moment for the sector could lead to additional course closures, staff redundancies and reductions in student support services. I urge the Government to review the levy mechanism before implementation and to publish full sensitivity analyses using realistic assumptions for international student demand.
While I hope the Treasury will seek to identify alternative sources of funding for maintenance grants, I urge the Government to introduce transitional protections should the proposals be introduced in 2028. I also hope the Treasury will examine the exclusion of PhD researchers from the Government’s expanded childcare offer. Because stipends are not classed as taxable income, they are denied access to that support. Will the Treasury team work with the Department for Education to explore solutions that ensure that researchers receive the same childcare offer as other working families?
On our North sea, I remain deeply concerned about our offshore energy sector. Net zero is our future—there is no denying that—but the transition must be fair, managed and prosperous. David Whitehouse, chief executive of Offshore Energies UK, has warned that waiting beyond 2026 to reform the energy profits levy would
“see 1,000 jobs continue to be lost every month, more energy imports and a contagion across supply chains and our industrial heartlands.”
I echo his words:
“This is not over. We will keep pressing for change”.
I could not make a Budget debate speech without mentioning the vaping industry. Illicit products, under-age sales and rogue retailers undermine public trust in what is the most effective form of smoking cessation. I am pleased that the Government have announced plans to give border officers and tax officials greater powers to tackle the surge of prohibited e-cigarettes on high streets across the country, with police having powers to remove illegal vapes on the spot and to fine shop owners up to £10,000. A licensing scheme would be the icing on the cake.
Politics is about values, which are always tested when the going gets tough. Against a backdrop of challenges, this Government have reaffirmed their moral commitment to tackling poverty and getting our economy back on track.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I am sure that the Chancellor is sick of hearing her own words from last year quoted back to her:
“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.]
Yesterday, she froze income tax thresholds, dragging one in four people into higher rate or additional rates of tax and pushing the tax burden to an all-time high of 38% of GDP. Today, she is refusing to rule out coming back for more. Blindly copying the playbook of the last Conservative Government, she is the continuity Chancellor. There is still no vision for growth, just that old-style Labour tax and spend. It is like new Labour’s wealth creation to pay for better public services never happened.
The Government may like to blame the Conservatives for the OBR’s downgrade in growth, but the OBR has said that none of the measures in the Budget will boost growth. In fact, the Budget may actively harm growth. The OBR has said that slower wage growth and higher taxes mean living standards will rise more slowly than expected. Take, for example, the raid on pension contributions: the OBR tells us that employers will pass on the cost of the £4.7 billion tax raid on pension contributions to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. The CBI has data showing that three quarters of employers will decrease pension contributions as a result. It is a tax on those doing the right thing.
That comes after Government policies harmed businesses in their first Budget, including the national insurance increases that have put thousands of pounds on to a load of businesses in my constituency, causing them to hire less and cut hours for the very people that the Government say they want to protect: part-time, low-paid workers, often with caring responsibilities. Higher unemployment in turn means more spend on universal credit—indeed, £1.8 billion more, as estimated by the OBR, on unemployment. It is all the wrong way round.
Yesterday, one long-term successful business owner in my constituency said to me:
“The whole thing is just depressing. I could work for another 10 or 20 years creating wealth for the economy, but the Government is making it so hard I may as well retire. And if I was in my 30s, I wouldn’t choose to do it here any more—I would move overseas.”
She is one of our wealth creators—she creates the growth we need. Another large business in my constituency who once felt confident about investing in Britain, creating growth and hiring new staff is now telling me that it is scaling back plans, postponing projects altogether and contemplating offshoring.
Talking of supporting people trying to do the right thing, let us turn to landlords. One of my constituents, who is known as a decent landlord, told me yesterday:
“I may as well pull out—what is the point? I get 2% gain on my properties. I may as well put it in the bank and get 4%.”
The Government’s policy will take rentals off the market and increase rents. In Esher and Walton, where rental prices are sky high, that means more people will not be able to afford to live there.
The property tax will gum up the housing market and distort it by bunching properties for sale below the threshold. It is said that the surcharge will raise more than £600 million, but that will be offset by £200 million of behavioural impact, so the take-home is £400 million, which is a rounded-up figure. In London and the south-east, where the average price per square foot is higher, those properties might not be such big houses, and in them are likely to be pensioners. Public First has said that two fifths of homeowners in bands G and H are pensioners.
Monica Harding
I do not have the time.
Older homeowners who have watched their properties’ value soar over the years will be hardest hit by this granny tax. They are asset-rich but cash-poor. They may be forced to sell up—at reduced asking prices—and more properties will get dragged into the mansion tax net. As that happens, a proportion of terraced houses, flats and semis will join them.
Worst of all, this is not a serious attempt to reform property tax, including business rates, stamp duty and council tax. Like the Budget, it is tinkering and meddling around the edges. This is a patchwork Budget that does not take us much further forward. Where has the national mission for growth gone? This is a low-growth Budget from a low-growth Government who thumb their nose at the wealth creators. It does not tackle some of the big questions. Where is the money in the plan for adult social care? Where is the money in the plan for the £14 billion deficit in SEND provision to help local authorities that are about to go bankrupt? The Budget is a smorgasbord of contempt for aspiration and growth. The Government have not only abandoned working people in my constituency, but waged a quiet war on aspiration itself.
I am pleased that the Government have lifted the two-child benefit limit. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] My party laid out how we would do that, but Government Members know as well as I do that poverty does not end there. To tackle poverty, we need to create growth.
There is an alternative, which the Liberal Democrats have laid out in our plan to turbocharge economic growth by repairing the £90 billion Brexit black hole caused by the previous Conservative Government. The UK needs to negotiate a new bespoke customs union with the European Union: a modern arrangement designed around the needs of British businesses and workers, which would raise £25 billion a year. Instead of that we have a Budget that taxes work, punishes investment, stifles aspiration and still fails to deliver for public services; a Budget that tells wealth creators—
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I was going to say that it is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding). At the beginning of the debate, we talked about films with the shadow Chancellor, and the hon. Lady reminds us of “Back to the Future”, as that really was 2010 all over again. Perhaps a couple of steps to the right, so to speak, may well be in order.
My constituents in Dunfermline and Dollar tell me every week what matters to them, and that is what the Chancellor has delivered in her Budget speech. She delivered on the main issues that affect people by bringing down the cost of living, ensuring that working people in every corner of the country keep more of what they earn. It is a Labour Budget in every sense of the word, focused on helping the people who need it most, lifting families out of poverty and creating new opportunities for the future.
I am proud to be one of the founding members of the living standards coalition on the Labour Benches. We hear every day how important these issues are, and we have pressed for these changes simply because we know that these are the actions that matter most to the people in our constituencies and will make their lives better. The alternative proposed by Opposition Members is also something out of a film, except that film is “The Wolf of Wall Street”—a failed ideological lurch back to hated austerity: the cruel experiment that shattered public services and pushed millions of people across the country into poverty and despair.
Yesterday in the Budget, the Chancellor announced that there will be no return to those dark times. We will see responsible choices that stabilise the economy and put money back into people’s pockets. With the increase in the national living wage and the national minimum wage, the Chancellor has shown yet again that the Government are laser focused on making work pay, ensuring that those who work hard to get ahead feel a sense of fairness. To the 10,000 Fifers who will benefit from these measures, I say, “The Labour Government are fighting for you now and will go on fighting for you day in, day out.”
The Government have shown what matters most to the British people: no more fear and uncertainty from Tory mismanagement, bills down, wages up, pensions up and more money in people’s pockets. That was a promise made by Labour and kept by this Labour Government.
We have already seen the Government deliver trade deals. Just last week, a £4 billion agreement with Indonesia secured hundreds of jobs at Rosyth in my constituency. Today, the Chancellor confirmed that the Budget will see no return to austerity in Scotland, with the Scottish Government receiving a further £820 million, putting Scotland at the heart of the Budget. Sadly, Scots have seen lengthened NHS waiting times, delayed trains and struggling schools, but the Budget has laid the foundation that will allow Anas Sarwar as First Minister in Scotland to rebuild north as well.
Keeping fuel costs down is vital for my constituents— I have led campaigns on that during my time in Parliament —so I very much welcome the Chancellor’s fuel duty freeze and the other measures to support people and small businesses in Dunfermline and Dollar.
We are also looking after the older generations—particularly people who have served our country and powered our past. One of the Government’s first acts was to right a historic wrong by overturning the injustice that diminished the mineworkers’ pension scheme and returning pension funds to the pockets of retired miners. The day after the previous Budget, I discussed with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury the need to support members of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Thanks to me and coalfield MPs from across the Labour party, the Chancellor announced that change, which will benefit 176 families in my constituency and almost 700 across Fife. I pay tribute to BCSSS campaigners across the country, including Alan Kenney in my constituency. Justice for BCSSS members means more money in the pockets of the retired workers whose labour quite literally kept the lights on in this country, ensuring that they have financial flexibility and security, which inevitably boosts the local economy.
This Budget supports working families and lifts them out of poverty. As others have said, we cannot allow a false choice to exist; we must always remember that 70% of children in poverty come from working families. Those are hard-working people who are trying to support their children but who need just a little more help from this Labour Government. The scrapping of the two-child limit will benefit an estimated 1,400 children in my constituency alone.
While we are talking about righting historic wrongs, something about which I have not heard much in this debate is the Labour Government’s covid counter-fraud commissioner recovering £430 million of our money from scammers enabled by the Conservative party.
Fife will also benefit from £40 million of pride in place funding thanks to this Government’s support for local communities, which will build local infrastructure, improve skills and increase community capacity where it is needed most. That funding is available only because of the choices made by this Government and the Chancellor. We will use the funds we have to support the people who need it most, bringing down bills, putting more money in people’s pockets and creating a prosperous economic future.
This Budget is about fairness, stability and hope. It delivers for Dunfermline and Dollar, for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. Promises were made, and promises have been kept. This is a future we can believe in, and the Budget will have my full support.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In reflecting on the title that the Government have offered up for today’s Budget resolutions debate, “Economic Sustainability and Fair Choices”, I have found myself wondering on what planet anyone could possibly call yesterday’s Budget sustainable or fair. The forecasts show that GDP growth will be down in every year from 2026 to 2029, consumer prices index inflation will be up 3.5% this year, taxes will increase by £26 billion, the unemployment rate will hit 4.9% in 2026, the size of the state itself will increase to 44.8% of GDP, borrowing will go up £11 billion, and debt interest will be higher in every year of the forecast. That is not the makings of a sustainable economy or growth, and it is certainly not fair on the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden to pay for it all.
As I visit businesses in my constituency—the retailers and hospitality businesses on the high streets of Wendover, Princes Risborough, Great Missenden; the village pubs; the furniture manufacturers in Princes Risborough and the surrounds; and the rocket scientists and big businesses at Westcott venture park—they all paint a picture of preparing for things to get worse. They say that they are not planning to take on new employees or apprentices.
Graeme Downie
Did the hon. Gentleman have a similar conversation with his constituents after Liz Truss’s disastrous Budget, which he supported? What did they say?
Greg Smith
Labour Members are like a broken record. The last Conservative Government certainly made a number of mistakes—we have put our hands up to that—but we left employment high and unemployment at a record low, and jobs were being created every single day.
Now, businesses are not taking on—or are planning not to take on—more new starters, or, like Rumsey’s Chocolaterie on Wendover High Street, have already had to lay people off or cut their hours because of employer NI, business rates and the looming Employment Rights Bill. Those are the real-world consequences of the Labour Government’s policies. The dividends tax in the Budget struck right at the heart of the entrepreneurs—the small business owners—who risk everything to create growth, employ people and create the jobs that we want in our economy. It has sent them the message: “There will be less in it for you, if anything at all.” Many of those businesses operate on narrow margins, working their socks off almost for nothing, and this Government are making it even harder for them. That is no way to run an economy.
I am lucky enough to have many farmers in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where around 90% of the land is agricultural, and I talk to them as often as I can. My party held an emergency food and farming summit at Fleet Marston farm in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), joined me to again hear directly from farmers about the impact the family farm tax will have. They will have to either sell up to a third of their farm to meet that tax bill or take on a level of debt that it will take over 40 years to pay back.
The National Farmers Union, many other organisations and farmers directly have tried to reach out, including yesterday on Whitehall, to get Labour MPs and Ministers to listen and understand the real-world consequences of their decisions. And yet the Budget yesterday was entirely lacking anything other than the transferable allowance to take away the stress, anxiety and existential threat to British agriculture that the family farm tax and changes to business property relief represent to family businesses and family farms up and down the country. I can assure anyone who challenges the point I am making that it will not be other farmers who buy the land when farms have to sell to meet the inheritance tax bill—it will be property developers and those with all sorts of other concerns, who will not keep that land in food production. The nation’s food security will suffer as a direct result of the failure to scrap the family farm tax yesterday.
I want to talk briefly about another issue I have been focused on for a number of years, during the last Parliament and this one. I draw the House’s attention to my co-chairmanship of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the new Exchequer Secretary for the time they have taken to reach out on this issue. Some of the announcements yesterday were welcome, off the back of the McCann review. However, I am sorry to say to the House that they have not been met with total joy from the victims of the loan charge, because many people caught up in the loan charge are still being asked to pay amounts of money that they simply cannot afford.
The Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers are on the record saying, when in opposition, that the victims of the loan charge were “victims of mis-selling” and that the perpetrators—those who promoted these schemes—should have been brought to justice. What we got yesterday was nothing of the sort. We did not get the fully independent review that the APPG and the Loan Charge Action Group have been calling for.
Despite the concessions yesterday, many people simply will not be able to pay. Two thirds of the victims are now over 55, 40% are over 60 and a quarter are already retired. They just do not have the ability to find the amounts of money being asked for, and the offer on the table is nothing like the settlement made with the big banks some years ago, which was in the region of 10% to 15%. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to look at this again and to deliver a genuinely fair settlement to everyone caught up by the loan charge and pursue those who sold the schemes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Many of the measures announced yesterday will make a real difference to the lives of the people I represent back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. To whom much is given, much is expected. The Labour party received a mandate and the trust of the people last year, so we must get on with the job of getting our country back on track, and this Budget helps us do that.
Communities like mine in the industrial heartlands believe that hard work should always pay off, that people should contribute their fair share, that nobody should walk by on the other side, as Holy Scripture tells us, and that everyone in our United Kingdom should be able to live with dignity and opportunity and to get by and get on. Nobody in a country like ours, rich in people, ambition and potential, should ever be forced to choose between heating and eating. Nobody should be left living on social security when they can and should, if able, be at work, benefiting from the dignity and power that work provides.
I am grateful for the announcement on the BCSSS. That change is something that I have campaigned hard for, alongside colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), and my Staffordshire colleagues and neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—and yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), and many others. Men and women from Newcastle-under-Lyme who worked down the pits in our coal industry, fuelled our economy and kept the lights on, will now finally get the justice that they deserve. They will get the money that they are owed, and it cannot come fast enough.
In our United Kingdom, no child should grow up in poverty. That is why I welcome the decision to tackle real injustice and inequality, and lift 1,770 children out of poverty in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I am glad that two local schools back home—the Meadows school and Langdale primary school—have already received funding for breakfast clubs. I look forward to more local schools benefiting, so that no child goes to school hungry.
Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many wonderful family farms and the farmers and families who live on them—people who tend to our land, feed us and keep our country going. I have raised their concerns, which I share, about the proposed changes to APR for farmers. I welcome the sensible concession in the Budget that will allow for a clearer and smoother transfer of reliefs between married couples and civil partners, but I urge colleagues on the Front Bench to consider the threshold. Going for the baddies who land bank is the right thing to do, because those who should pay must be made to pay, but we must not allow an unintended impact on small family farms.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of family farms; I have a number of them in my constituency. Does he agree that it is important to strike a balance in his part of the country, as well as in the devolved Administrations, and to put the tax burden in the correct place, while protecting small family farms?
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives voice to the fact that we are one United Kingdom, and the same approach must be taken in Scotland as in the centre of our collective universe, Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is important to note that the challenges facing our farming industry did not start last July—we all know that—but this Government now have the chance to give our farmers the support that, I am afraid, the previous Conservative Government failed to.
It is easy to be gloomy about the state of the world, but there is always hope. This weekend marks the first anniversary since the cowboy operators at Walley’s quarry landfill site were closed down; 147 days into my time as our MP, we finally secured justice for the people in my community who were forced to live with the disgusting and disgraceful situation at Walley’s. That is a sign that things can only get better, and I pay tribute to all the campaigners who worked so hard with me over my first 147 days as MP.
With this Budget, we are fixing the roof—and while the sun may not be shining, it certainly is not raining outside. We will see more children eating properly and not going to school hungry; more parents able to work without worrying about childcare; and more former miners finally getting justice and the money that they are rightfully owed. We will see prescription charges and rail fares frozen; more pensioners able to afford to heat their homes and buy Christmas presents for their grandchildren; and the disgusting rape clause gone. We will see more people able to afford their energy bills, which will be cut by £150, and more young people will be supported into life-changing education and employment opportunities. We will see support for farmers, but there is much more to do on that. I hope that the Minister has heard that, for the third time this speech.
There is more support for universities and colleges, such as Keele University and Newcastle College in my constituency. They will receive the support that they need to continue providing a world-class British education. We will see more doctors, nurses and NHS staff getting the credit and support that they richly deserve. I declare an interest, as my wife is a nurse—an excellent one, as are all her colleagues.
The Budget will not change the country overnight. It will not solve every issue immediately, but it sets us on a path to a fairer, better and more inclusive United Kingdom. I will always shout loudly when we show the difference that a Labour Government can make. I will speak truth to power when we need to do things better, and I will always ensure that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme are heard loudly and proudly in this place. We have much to do, so let’s get on with it.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). I thank him for his support for the campaign against the family farm tax, and for his courage in speaking out in favour of abolishing that impost on our farming communities.
It is no exaggeration to say that this is the worst Budget that I have witnessed as a Member of this House, but it generated the best response I have ever heard from the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) on the way that she dealt with it, and I start by referring to her excellent speech. She said:
“the Chancellor has, by her own admission, broken her manifesto promise on income tax. In the last Budget, she 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…thresholds”.
She also said that
“extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 403.]
Yesterday, the Chancellor had the gall to say, in the conclusion of her speech, that she was
“keeping every single one of our manifesto commitments”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 399.]
It is hardly surprising that disillusionment with politics and the political system in our country is running so high, when there is that sort of betrayal of not just a manifesto commitment, but even what was said last year. I happened to be, I think, the only Conservative MP at the CBI dinner last year, and I heard the Chancellor say to Rupert Soames, president of the CBI, that she was not coming back for more, that there was a clean slate, and that the Government would not increase taxes. She seems to have disregarded what she said a year ago to the CBI. Was she seduced by Rupert Soames? I do not know. Did she mean what she said, or did she not? It is hardly surprising that people do not trust this Government any longer.
Those who had the misfortune—I do not know whether you ever did, Madam Deputy Speaker—to travel on Belgium’s national airline Sabena developed the acronym “such a bad experience, never again”, and that is exactly the view of those who voted Labour for the first time at the last general election. They are saying, “never again”, because they witness the arrogance, the incompetence, and the downright deceit of this Labour Government.
It is worth putting on record the extent to which taxes are now increasing. Table A.5 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” sets that out. I put this in the context of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the “Today” programme this morning. When asked whether she would rule out further tax increases in this Parliament, she declined to answer, and in essence said that she would not, but let us remind ourselves of the tax increases already in the Budget. In 2024-25, income tax was £305.9 billion. It is going up to £410.9 billion by 2029-30, which is an increase of £105 billion, or over one third. National insurance is going up from £171.4 billion to £239.2 billion, an increase of 40% over five years. Business rates are rising from £32.1 billion to £41.9 billion, an increase of 30% over five years. Council tax is rising from £47.4 billion to £63.3 billion over five years, an increase of at least one third. Inheritance tax is rising from £8.3 billion to £13.5 billion, an increase of 60% over five years. It is hardly surprising that people are feeling poorer and betrayed. Very few people will experience increases in their household income of anything like those proportions in the next five years. That is why this Budget is such a disaster and a betrayal of the national interest.
There is also an unhealthy development in the Budget that I hope you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can discuss with Mr Speaker. Many constituencies were mentioned, and Labour Members were identified as having contributed to the Chancellor’s decisions. It struck me that people are now being bought off by the Chancellor in return for their support, and that is an extremely unhealthy development. It is basically what we have seen happening in the United States, and we do not like it at all.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
This Budget sets out fair decisions that benefit communities across the country that have felt the strain of the last decade, and that expect to see the change that they voted for delivered, and the cost of living brought under control.
I am delighted that Cornwall’s potential has been recognised with the new £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund. This new fund demonstrates that Cornwall once again has a leading role to play in powering the UK economy. Mining is at the heart of our story in Cornwall. With the new support, we can begin the next chapter, in which critical minerals and other core industries will help us to unlock the next great industrial revolution, and greener, cheaper energy. The fund will support local businesses and workers. That investment is combined with the stability that will come through extended business rate retention, and sits alongside wider opportunities offered through the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank and Great British Energy. These choices support secure, year-round jobs, and this combination of investment, stability and real change for the majority of working people is reflected throughout the Budget
South East Cornwall will feel a benefit through local growth and to family finances. Families gain real support. Wages have risen faster in the first year of this Government than they did over the past decade. The reduction in energy bills and the freeze to prescription charges, fuel duty and rail fares will be welcomed by my residents in South East Cornwall. The changes to universal credit will bring thousands back into work, strengthening labour markets in places like Liskeard, Torpoint and Callington.
One of the most significant steps is the decision to scrap the two-child benefit limit. Shockingly, child poverty rose by 900,000 between 2010 and 2024. I say “shockingly”, but I am not sure if that truly shocks the Conservatives, who presided over that decline. I know what child poverty looks like. I know how it locks people out of opportunities through no fault of their own, and I know how hard schools, campaigners, charities and other support systems work to try to bridge the gap, but some gaps require systemic change. This Budget will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. That is what systemic change under this Labour Government looks like.
In South East Cornwall, relative child poverty stood at 21.7% in 2023, meaning that almost a quarter of our local children entered school already facing hardship. Growing up in poverty makes people less likely to be in work, and more likely to earn 25% less, aged 30, so that is not good for kids or for the adults they become, and it is not good for our economy. This Budget reduces pressure and gives families a more secure start.
For too long, local healthcare has been a challenge for residents in South East Cornwall, so I am pleased that Labour is backing our NHS with extra support. Investment in healthcare technology and the creation of 250 neighbourhood health centres will cut waiting lists and improve access. The NHS neighbourhood rebuild opens up more than 120 new centres by 2030, and there will be improvements at Truro health park. That is backed by real investment; these are not fantasy priorities. Residents in South East Cornwall rely on services in both Cornwall and Plymouth, and these upgrades will bring benefits right across my region.
Young people get new opportunities as well. Investment in school libraries and new playgrounds will improve learning and wellbeing, and there will be an £820 million investment to support young people by guaranteeing them a place in college, an apprenticeship or personalised job support. The free apprenticeship training for under 25s in small businesses will help local employers across South East Cornwall. That is 1,854 small and medium-sized enterprises in my region that will be able to train and retain young people. This is a real chance to build a local, skilled workforce and to keep that talent at home in Cornwall.
Cornwall needs the tools to strengthen its visitor economy in a way that benefits our local people in the long term, so an overnight visitor levy could be an important step. We rely heavily on tourism, yet residents often feel the pressure of the summer peaks without seeing the long-term benefits, so the power to raise local revenue and reinvest in our community projects could create a fairer balance and support a more resilient local economy.
I also welcome the new announcement for farmers and their families. The ability for spouses to transfer any unused agricultural and business property relief allowances gives farming families more certainty as they plan for their future. South East Cornwall is a proud rural and coastal constituency, and I have been working with many local farmers to ensure that their views are heard in my discussions with Ministers. Fixing thresholds and closing loopholes strengthens confidence, but I know there is further work to do.
Greg Smith
While the spousal transfer is a very narrow measure that might give a couple of years or maybe a decade’s relief, at the end of the day farmers will still have to sell massive chunks of their farm to meet the inheritance tax bill. What will the hon. Lady say to her farmers when that point comes?
Anna Gelderd
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me more time to make my points. Farming is at the heart of my community—
Anna Gelderd
I know, and I am very glad to be debating with the hon. Member on this point. Farming is at the heart of my community, and I am working hard with Ministers to ensure that the new changes are reflected. As I have said, there is much more work to do.
I particularly welcome the clear recognition of Cornwall in this Budget. Alongside the Kernow industrial growth fund, the Government’s commitment to work with the Council of Europe to increase the UK’s formal recognition of the Cornish language under the European charter for regional or minority languages matters, because Kernewek remains at a lower level of protection compared with other Celtic languages. That is why I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill focused on Cornish language and heritage.
Opposition parties talk about leaving the European convention on human rights. Cornwall fought hard for our national minority status and the frameworks that protect our language and heritage, so I do not want to see them thrown away. I want to see a wider use of Kernewek in signage and place names, which I know will boost our local economy as visitors flock to see it.
This Budget moves us in the right direction. It does not complete the work, but it delivers a fair step towards repairing Britain and rebuilding the opportunities in places such as South East Cornwall. I will continue working, as I have done since being elected, to deliver real investment, strong public services and a local economy that works year-round.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
After the next speaker there will be a five-minute time limit.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
G. K. Chesterton said:
“It is human to err; and the only final and deadly error, among all our errors, is denying that we have ever erred.”
Yesterday’s Budget brought into stark relief the fact that the Chancellor and this Government have erred and, worse, are in denial about their error.
The UK faces a twin-pronged fiscal crisis. Public debt is at around 100% of GDP and rising, with debt interest making up about three quarters of the deficit. Public spending, at close to 45% of GDP, is near to a high in the post-war years. Much of that failure is systemic—Governments of all colours have failed to address some fundamental macroeconomic challenges—but yesterday’s Budget not only failed to fix that entrenched mess, but did not even acknowledge that it is happening.
As the global liberal order decays, we face global economic challenges on a scale we have not seen for 100 years. Artificial intelligence risks transforming the jobs market. A recent study by the National Foundation for Educational Research forecast that up to 3 million jobs could disappear by 2035. Employment in sales and customer service occupations has fallen by more than 10% since 2021, and around 12 million people in England currently work in occupations deemed to be in decline. That requires Government to play a role.
Government can be a force for good. This House took far too long to recognise the damage that would be done by the internet, and finally, when those horrors were obvious, it legislated. We need to restrict AI where it does similar damage, rather than indulging this naive faith in technological change at all costs.
The old, comforting bourgeois assumptions about the benign nature of globalisation and the faith in technological change risk endangering many of the jobs I have described, and the purpose and pride they fuel. The US President was right to impose tariffs on cheap goods that were destroying vital US industries. In response, China is dumping surplus goods in Europe, and it has been estimated that 3 million industrial jobs in the EU are at risk from that surge of subsidised imported goods.
In response to these existential threats, the Government seem frozen in time. Too much of the establishment remains wedded to dysfunctional orthodoxies. We are playing by the rules of the game when the important players have left the table. We cannot continue to proselytise for unbridled free trade when the two biggest economies in the world, China and America, have given up on it. We have to protect those industries that are critical to our national economic interests, building greater economic resilience by reindustrialising and by manufacturing again, so ensuring that more of what we consume is made here in Britain, with the jobs, skills and reassurance that provides. An economy can nourish communal health, but it cannot do so in a world that is wedded to globalised, multinational, corporate companies that are careless of the difference they make to communities such as mine in Lincolnshire and those across the country.
Here in Britain, and across the western world, living standards are stagnating, productivity growth has all but disappeared, and the state grows ever bigger in the face of rising poverty and worklessness. Why, then, does the political class continue to profess a blind faith in an economic model that has delivered record levels of state dependency? The assumption that little can be done to reverse the inevitable process of industrial decline is simply wrong, as the experience of the United States suggests. Once we tune out the noise surrounding President Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, we can hear the faint stirrings of industrial revival. A detailed study of the impact of tariffs during the President’s first term found that once the pre-existing decline in manufacturing employment was accounted for, tariffs contributed to rising employment in areas with a large presence of protected industries. Neither did consumer prices surge in the United States, despite the predictions of liberal economists. Just imagine the potential benefits of a consistent and coherent trade policy that puts the needs of British industry first.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a world where capital and labour are highly mobile, and one that is increasingly pressured as a result of energy costs, the best thing the Government could do is pare back the regulation that inhibits manufacturers’ ability to compete competitively and prevents the UK from being a very attractive destination for that capital and labour?
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Both Governments and these big corporates welcome a regulatory system that disadvantages small and innovative companies. Big organisations quite like regulation, for they can cope with it because of their scale; small organisations struggle with it, because they simply do not have the resources to deal with it.
In 1979, manufacturing accounted for 30% of GDP in Britain; today that figure is just 8.5%. Manufacturing employed 21% of the workforce in 1982; by 2023 it employed just 8%. By some measure this is the greatest deindustrialisation of any major nation. We can and should build a different economic model—a new order.
We need a fundamental rethink of our economic model, breaking from the failed orthodoxy that currently prevails and moving towards what Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton called “distributism”, where local economies —introspective, feeding communal health, with shorter supply chains—mean that we can make more of what we need here in the UK, fuelling skills and nourishing communities. What Chesterton and Belloc intuitively understood was that the excessive concentration of economic power harms society and fuels the discontent that many people in Britain feel today. Real wages have stagnated, while those at the top—large corporations in particular, often based overseas—accumulate huge wealth and power.
We can build that new order. Small family businesses enrich the places in which we all live. Mutuals and co-operatives sustain communal and economic health in localities. We can do this, but it requires a radical rethink of the economic orthodoxy. The Budget does not suggest that rethink. All parties must step up to the mark and understand that we live in a post-liberal age where a new order is possible. Let us together build that new order, to deliver the common good by sustaining our national interest.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Undoubtedly my constituents will be watching this Budget debate closely, asking what it means for them and whether it will sort out the cost of living, fix the NHS and help pay down the national debt. What they will have seen from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and her ministerial team is a Budget with those issues at its heart.
Over 14 years this country experienced the steepest fall in living standards in living memory. The planned rise in the minimum wage next April is just one step towards alleviating those problems for the lowest paid in society. The youngest full-time workers will see a nearly £5,000 pay increase. Coupled with £150 off household energy bills, this Government are literally putting money in people’s pockets. Unlike the Tories and their latest rebrand, Reform, I will be proud next week to back a Budget that backs working people.
There is a simple truth: when workers are paid well, they work better. When working people have more money, the economy grows. I was delighted to hear in the Chancellor’s statement the announcement of the Team Derby initiative, a new roaring engine for the east midlands economy, creating high-paid, good-quality jobs in my home in Derbyshire. For children in Ilkeston and Long Eaton, new free apprenticeships in SMEs will be something to truly aspire to when they come out of school, as good as any university degree.
In Erewash, waiting times for GP appointments are a full week longer than the national average. It is fundamentally wrong that people in Ilkeston do not get the same standard of care as people who live here in London. We need to build a truly national health service, ending the postcode lottery for good. In this Budget, we have 250 new neighbourhood health centres. That will hopefully mean that the days of my constituents commuting into Nottingham or Derby for minor scans or blood tests might soon be over.
To address those who say that we can borrow without end or cut Britain to oblivion, or who think that tax cuts for the wealthy would somehow magic us into economic growth—or, if we ask the Greens, perhaps hypnotise us into physical growth—we already know where those ideas lead. All of those options were tried and tested during the 14 long years that the Conservative party were in control of the Government. It left them in the moribund electoral doldrums where they now find themselves. First, they tried to cut their way out of a recession. Interest rates were a fraction of a percent, yet they did nothing to invest in and grow our economy. The NHS fell to its knees, businesses stopped growing and wages went down in real terms. Even their own Back Benchers—what is left of them—and party members were not happy with their approach.
After 12 years of trying one failed scheme after another, and eventually running out of even vaguely credible ideas, the Conservatives tried something new: they made Liz Truss Prime Minister. I think we all remember how that ended, with the abject chaos of the Truss mini-Budget , filled with uncosted spending commitments, tax cuts for the wealthiest and nothing short of an economic Hindenburg. Who paid the price for that chaos and that economic crash? It was working people—families in Long Eaton, Ilkeston and Sandiacre—with mortgages sent sky high, and in some cases doubling, savings wiped out and inflation run amok.
Who supported that vandalism? While Conservative Back Benchers were pulling their collars, nervously sending furtive glances in the direction of their majorities, who instead gave Liz Truss their full-throated endorsement? It was, of course, the fake patriots and faux defenders of working people at Reform UK. They are fake patriots. Simply put, they cannot love this country if they want to sell it out to foreign billionaires—or Russian oligarchs, for that matter. If they want to charge people money to use our NHS, if they want to cut the minimum wage —taking money out of working people’s pockets, so that it can be given back to their bosses, tax-dodging corporations, millionaires, billionaires or shady party donors—and if they want to see a return to years of dredging austerity, they do not love this country.
This Government are investing in Britain, in its people, in families and in our economy fairly and sustainably. We are on the long road towards fighting back against the cost of living crisis, to make life in this country affordable again. We are getting the NHS back on its feet, cutting waiting lists, ending the postcode lottery and putting healthcare back in our local communities, where it can make a real difference. There will be no more squalid years of austerity, and no more failing working people. This Budget puts working people back at the heart of our economy, and I am very proud to support it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Yesterday the Chancellor attempted to present the Budget as a bold plan to rebuild Britain, but when we strip away the rhetoric, we see a Budget that is unsustainable, unfair and damaging to the very foundations of our economy. Most importantly, it is bad for all our constituents. Last year, the Chancellor raised taxes by £40 billion and promised that she would not be coming back for more. Yet here we are, one year on, with another £26 billion tax raid.
Credibility matters. When promises are broken so quickly, trust evaporates, and my constituents feel that betrayal directly. Families who believed the Chancellor’s assurances will now find themselves paying more tax, with less money left at the end of each month. The first duty of any Budget is to foster growth, yet the indicators all point in the wrong direction. Inflation is up, with food inflation at nearly 5%, so families in my constituency are paying more for their weekly shop. Taxes are up, and the OBR has confirmed that the UK’s tax burden is at a record high. It is projected to reach 38.3% of GDP by 2030. Our constituents are working longer hours, only to see more of their pay taken away.
Sir John Hayes
Food production in this country is critical to my constituency, my hon. Friend’s and others’, yet public procurement still does not prioritise British goods. Might he invite the Government to look at that again? It is absolutely right that this House, the Government and the public sector should support British-made goods, and British-made food in particular.
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Government have a duty, in every single thing that they do and in their entire approach, to ensure that they promote the interests of the UK and of the businesses and farms that strive to keep us fed and prosperous.
Unemployment is up and redundancies are rising. In my constituency, local employers are cutting jobs, leaving families anxious about their future. Spending is up, and borrowing overshot forecasts by £9.9 billion this year. My constituents know that every pound borrowed today is a pound that they will repay tomorrow. Confidence is down, with business surveys showing stagnation, and local shopkeepers tell me that they are holding back investment because they see no stability. Growth is also down, with GDP growing by just 0.1% in Q3 of this year. My constituents see stagnation in wages, stagnation in opportunity and stagnation in hope.
This is Labour’s economic scoreboard: inflation is up, taxes are up, unemployment is up, spending is up, borrowing is up, confidence is down and growth is down. That is not rebuilding Britain; it is dismantling Britain’s prosperity, and all our constituents are paying the price. Two thirds of the British public now say that they want to see spending cuts. My constituents are tightening their belts, and cutting back on holidays and meals out. Some are even cutting back on heating. They expect the Government to do the same and to live within their means, yet Labour’s Budget expands spending recklessly.
Businesses in my constituency are being hit hard. Last year, employer national insurance contributions were increased and business rates relief was cut, and businesses are struggling to survive. For savers, ISA allowances have been reduced, which undermines savings. Retail has lost over 100,000 jobs in the last year. With our high streets feeling the pain, shops are closing and livelihoods are being destroyed. The Budget offers no relief for small businesses in my constituency; it only offers more burdens.
Labour claims that fairness is at the heart of the Budget, but fairness is not what families in my constituency are feeling. Income tax thresholds have been frozen, dragging more workers into higher tax bands, and savers have seen their allowances cut. Even electric car owners, who have been encouraged to go green and to do the right thing, are now being penalised. This punishes aspiration.
Farmers in my constituency are among the hardest hit, and the family farm tax remains largely intact. The changes to inheritance tax threaten the survival of the family farm, and rising input costs and inflation are compounding the pressure. Farming is not just an industry; it is the backbone of our food security, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) pointed out, and the backbone of rural life, yet Labour continues to undermine it.
We are seeing an exodus of capital and labour in a world that is highly mobile. Over the last year, we have seen an exodus of high-net-worth individuals. While Labour Members may scowl at and casually dismiss that, the reality is that the displacement of those individuals would require another half a million average earners paying tax to plug the gap of tax revenue lost. That is the scale of the hole that the Government have created. Who will fill that? All of our constituents will—ordinary families, ordinary workers and ordinary savers.
Ambition without discipline is not a plan; it is a gamble. Labour’s Budget is a gamble with Britain’s future. Every £1 spent servicing debt is £1 not spent on public services, every broken promise erodes trust and every squeeze on families and businesses undermines the engine of our economy. Let us be clear: Labour spends until it runs out of other people’s money, and when the money runs out, our constituents pay the price. All of our constituents deserve better than what we have seen in this Budget. They deserve a Government who will restore fiscal discipline, encourage enterprise and deliver fairness for everyone.
Yesterday’s Budget is not a plan for the future, but a blueprint for decline. It ignores the public’s demand for spending cuts and for the Government to live within their means. It presides over the loss of further jobs, and it drives away wealth creation, leaving ordinary taxpayers to pick up the bill. It squeezes families, undermines businesses and will devastate farmers. This is not rebuilding Britain; this is dismantling Britain’s prosperity. Labour spends until it runs out of other people’s money, and my constituents cannot afford that any longer.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin with some Kernewek, as I have done in pretty much every question in this Chamber, to reinforce the point about part III Cornish language status made by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd).
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a Budget intent on stability, investment and economic sustainability. It focused on driving growth in areas of socioeconomic deprivation such as Cornwall, including my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. The Kernow industrial growth fund will boost our local economy in a sustainable way. Alongside the fairer funding review and the extension of the Cornish business rates retention, it means that this Labour Government are backing Cornwall’s economic growth and its public services. The Kernow industrial growth fund will enable investment in growth-driving interventions to support the duchy’s high-potential sectors. It will also help to build clusters around key industries to attract private investment and create high-value supply chains.
Cornwall is at the centre of the Government’s economic ambitions with its critical minerals, renewable energy and marine innovation sectors driving the transition to a greener economy. The £50 million fund, announced in this week’s critical minerals strategy, is set to further sharpen the teeth of the Cornish Celtic tiger. Since we arrived in Parliament, Cornwall’s four Labour MPs have made it our business to highlight our economic potential across Departments to ensure that we get a fairer deal for Cornwall. The Treasury has recognised the vast economic potential in Cornwall to create stable, secure jobs, driving growth across the duchy, and as a result has set up this Kernow industrial growth fund. We are grateful for the time the Chancellor has granted us to listen to our case, and we are looking forward to continuing our discussions with other Departments, which must now support delivering on this vast economic potential to ensure that essential housing, infrastructure and public transport are in place.
Those businesses of course need the new workforce of young Cornish men and women, which brings me on to fairer chances. When we said at the general election that we wanted to break down barriers at every opportunity and at every level, we meant it. In my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, just under 5,000 children are living in poverty, but 2,210 of these children will be directly impacted by the scrapping of the two-child limit. That policy change has already been clearly identified and mentioned many times in this Chamber today as the single most effective measure to reduce child poverty. The economic and social damage of retaining this policy has been well documented. Removing it gives these children a real chance, from the very start, to enjoy better chances in life.
But that is not happening in isolation. When we combine the scrapping of the two-child limit with increased free childcare, expanded breakfast clubs, free school meals, investment in our Ofsted-rated outstanding Cornwall College, and now the Chancellor’s announcement of free apprenticeships for under-25s, we can see a golden thread running from cradle to career for children from the poorest backgrounds. This is what breaking down barriers looks like. This is what social mobility delivery looks like. It is a Labour Budget from a Labour Chancellor steeped in Labour values, delivering that golden thread for the children of my constituency and across the land. On behalf of the poorest children of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, I want to take this moment to thank our Labour Chancellor.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Families and businesses across the country will have heard yesterday’s Budget and been disappointed that the Government missed their second opportunity to seriously address some of the key issues we are facing. Energy bills remain sky high, the cost of employment continues to rise, and, with no substantial reference to Brexit, the Chancellor is ignoring the single biggest measure which could boost economic growth.
Increasing the minimum wage is of course welcome news for millions of low-paid workers, but unless businesses are able to grow there is a danger that it will result in fewer jobs being available overall. Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, compounded by the burden of last year’s NICs rise and concerns about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the past year, with nearly 70,000 job losses in hospitality alone since just last October. This has obvious challenges for businesses, many of whom will find it difficult to absorb further costs. However, these businesses provide vital social value and essential entry-level jobs, offering many young people their first job.
Adding national insurance to salary sacrifice pension contributions also pushes up the cost of employment. Last week, I asked the Chancellor what information her Department holds on the number of people who use salary sacrifice schemes. To my astonishment, the Treasury responded by stating that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not hold that data on the number of employers offering, and employees using, salary sacrifice schemes. I am also concerned about the impact on investment if pension contributions are squeezed, because we know that pension funds have a significant role to play in ensuring that UK companies get the scale-up investment they need. We know that parties across the House are committed to boosting UK investment.
The Chancellor reinforced her commitment to fund the lower Thames crossing project, of which £900 million will be publicly financed. In the spring spending review, the Government announced a £1 billion structure fund as part of their 10-year infrastructure strategy. Does that mean that the Government have now only budgeted £100 million to be spent on critical transport improvements over the next nine and a half years? Does that mean I should give up all hope of ever getting funding for Hammersmith bridge in my constituency to be reopened? And the reason I am asking that question here in the Chamber is because on five occasions this year I have asked for a meeting with the Department for Transport to discuss its plans, and whether the structure fund will be allocated for the bridge’s repairs, and every single time that request has been denied. If the Chancellor is asking London residents to pay ever-increasing bills, local residents in my constituency will expect to see a fair proportion reinvested into their community. London is the UK’s financial hub. The failure to even talk to me about fixing Hammersmith bridge is indicative of the Government’s attitude towards London residents.
That question is particularly pressing for residents in my constituency, as they will be disproportionately impacted by the mansion tax. Not only is this an extremely limited revenue raiser, but it will also impact London residents more than in any other region in the UK. The Department for Work and Pensions’ own figures show there is less discretionary spending, after housing costs, in London than anywhere else. What is really needed here is wholesale reform to council tax and stamp duty, so we can look again at how property is taxed. I have heard people say that residents in Darlington pay more than those in Mayfair. Let me tell the House that a band A resident in my constituency pays more council tax than a band F resident in the borough next door. This is not about equalising council tax rates between poorer and richer houses. We already pay a considerably elevated amount of council tax in Richmond. [Interruption.] This is not equalising rates between boroughs; this is simply placing an additional expense—[Interruption.] I am sorry; would the Minister like to intervene? I can tell him that the poorest in my constituency are paying more council tax than extremely wealthy constituents in the borough next door, and this measure will do nothing to equalise that.
I will turn to the 2% increase in tax on landlords. I hear what the Government are saying about equalising sources of income, but they need to consider the impact that this will have on the availability of rental properties, particularly in London. We have already seen a big withdrawal of landlords from the property market in London, which is squeezing availability and affordability. Additional taxes will not do anything to address the housing shortage in London.
Briefly, the Valuation Office Agency has an 18-month backlog on business rate challenges. I want to hear what the Government are doing to boost the Valuation Office Agency and how much that will cost. They are only going to make £400 million from the mansion tax, and a lot of that will be spent on administration. I really want to hear from the Minister about that.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
This Budget sets out a serious and responsible direction for our country’s future and speaks directly to the needs of people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. It supports families and workers, puts the public finances back on stable ground and backs the businesses that are the backbone of towns like ours.
Crucially, we are already seeing real, measurable progress for Britain after 14 years of incompetence, failure, stagnation and rampant inflation. Growth has been upgraded to 1.5% this year and wages have risen faster in our first year than during the last decade the Conservatives were in power. For people in towns like ours, those are not abstract statistics; they are the difference between treading water—constant struggle—and finally feeling as though we are moving forward again as a community and as a country.
Families in my area have felt the squeeze more than most. I hear weekly about parents monitoring the thermostat hour by hour, commuters worried about every fare rise and households whose disposable income has simply evaporated with the cost of living. I welcome our plan, which gives people real relief right now: £150 off energy bills next year, rising to £300 for those who need it most; more support; more homes insulated and more homes built in towns in our constituencies; a freeze on rail fares, petrol duty and prescription charges; and, for our NHS, the largest reduction in waiting lists in almost 20 years, in addition to 250 new neighbourhood health centres, 5.2 million more NHS appointments and care brought closer to home, with more doctors and nurses.
However, it is not just short-term support that matters; it is long-term renewal. We are maintaining the highest levels of public investment in 40 years, because our constituencies cannot rebuild on the foundations left behind after austerity and the chaos of 14 years of Tory Britain. Better transport connections, stronger and better-funded local services, investment in skills and young people, and higher-paid, quality jobs—these remain the building blocks of renewal in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.
Oliver Ryan
I will not, because of time.
We are doing all that while paying down the national debt and getting into surplus—something promised several times by the Tories but, as far as I am aware, never done. We are doubling the fiscal headroom, which is a momentous achievement—something we are probably not shouting about enough—and taking responsibility for the public finances after the rank mismanagement of the previous Government.
For too long, the welfare system that we inherited left working families too poor to eat and wrote off hundreds of thousands of people as too sick to work without offering them proper support. Indeed, when the shadow Chancellor was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the welfare bill soared by £33 billion, and he put an extra 229,000 people into the welfare system. The welfare bill doubled during the Conservatives’ time in office, which is bad for our budget, our communities and the people they wrote off. We are finally putting that right.
We are addressing poverty at the same time by scrapping the two-child limit, which is lifting 450,000 children out of poverty nationally, including a huge 5,170 children in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield. We are guaranteeing jobs for people under the age of 25, ending long-term youth unemployment and ensuring that no young person is abandoned.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to make a point about support for businesses. We have not only maintained Government capital investment plans, but made sure that we will lower permanently business rates for local employers and multipliers for our high street. We are doing this to create a stable and long-term approach for businesses.
We are taking important steps such as relieving stamp duty on the first three years of new UK-listed companies for larger entities, which is our invitation to the world to do business here. That will have a direct effect on our competitiveness. We are putting in place more support for manufacturers in places such as my constituency, where energy bills have swelled over the last 10 years. We are extending capital allowances for business assets and leasing, and we are extending tariff suspension and support likewise. This will help some of my area’s largest employers to grow. In addition, we are extending NICs relief for those who hire veterans. Our measures include ISA reform to encourage investment into quite sizeable businesses. I am also interested in the call for evidence on firms with scale-up potential, which will end next year.
All these steps will create growth for the economy and help my constituents, and I greatly welcome this Budget.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Tax increases of £26 billion and the tax burden rising to an all-time high of 38% of national income—this is a traditional, good old-fashioned high-tax, high-spend Labour Budget. It is a Budget that locks in a debt ratio of 100% and an economy with little or no growth. It effectively ends Labour’s pledge to grow the economy and raise living standards. The growth in real disposable incomes over this Parliament is now expected to be the second worst since records began in the 1950s. This is a Budget to appease the left of the parliamentary Labour party rather than the general public. It is a Budget to shore up the Chancellor’s weak position and that of the Prime Minister. We will see how successful that has been come May.
Since Labour came to power, the Chancellor has raised taxes by £66 billion, which is more than any Government in the last 50 years. When the Chancellor proudly announced that growth had increased by 0.5%, there were cheers from the Government Benches, but she did not mention that that figure was a downgrade from the 1.9% forecast earlier in the year, nor did she make reference to the downgraded projections for the rest of the decade. The Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its growth forecasts for real household disposable income per person over the next five years. The OBR’s “Economic financial outlook” report states that growth will slump to an average of 0.25% a year over the forecast,
“well below the last decade’s average growth of 1% a year”.
The average household will be £850 poorer at the end of this Parliament than when Labour took office.
The Chancellor said:
“today £1 in every £10 the Government spend is on debt interest—not on paying down that debt, but just on paying the interest”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 389.]
Some £113.7 billion is currently being spent on servicing that debt, and by the end of this Parliament that figure will reach £140 billion.
For a working person on average earnings, the tax threshold is frozen and will be for the rest of the decade. Pensioners will be dragged into the basic rate of income tax for the first time; 780,000 people are going to be dragged into being a basic rate taxpayer, and nearly a million will become higher rate taxpayers. For people on benefits, those benefits are not frozen; they are index- linked to inflation.
The OBR has forecast that over the next five years, welfare spending will rise by £73.2 billion to £406.2 billion. The U-turn on lifting the two-child benefit cap beggars belief. For it to go from a policy that saw seven Labour MPs lose the Whip, and that was effectively the catalyst for the creation of an entirely new political party on the left, to a totemic Labour policy is transparently a move to both appease the Labour Benches and shut the door on the surge in support for a Zack Polanski-inspired resurgent Green party and the stuttering Your party. By the end of this Parliament, lifting the cap will cost £3 billion a year. That is more than the total spend on fire and rescue services in England.
The heavily trailed high value council tax surcharge is lacking crucial detail on how it will be implemented. Doing it properly will require a revaluation of every property in the country by the valuation office by April 2028 in order to understand which houses are in scope. What will the criteria for that be? How will the value of the house be decided if it has not been sold in recent years? Moreover, the revenue will go to central Government, not the local authority. It will disappear into general taxation, and those paying the tax will likely never see any local benefit from it.
The decision to raise the minimum wage looks good at first glance.
Sir John Hayes
I support the minimum wage. It is important that working people, particularly less well-off working people, are adequately rewarded. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real impact will be on small and medium-sized businesses? Those businesses are already dealing with increasing cost burdens. When the Minister sums up, he might want to reflect on the effect that that may have on the creation of employment in those kind of businesses.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I have spent the last year talking to small businesses in my constituency that have been crippled by the measures in the last Budget. When this year’s measures come in as well, some of those businesses will struggle desperately to keep on lower earners, particularly young people.
My first job as a 16-year-old was working in a supermarket, and I am sure many Members had a similar experience. Those opportunities are going to disappear for young people as a result of these measures. What this Labour Government have not taken into account is that every above-inflation wage increase leads to higher business costs, lower investment and fewer opportunities for those we represent. Many businesses that want to employ people will now find themselves unable to take on staff or to take the risks that the Chancellor mentioned, meaning that businesses cannot grow.
We are very likely to see the wage compression effect, whereby the gap between those on the minimum wage and those in more skilled or experienced roles becomes smaller. That, yet again, leads to a lack of incentive to develop skills and opportunities for those with them. The Government must address that, as it will curtail opportunities for young people and lower earners. Unemployment is now set to peak at 5% and the number of economically inactive people will also rise.
The pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles will surely disincentivise the switch to EVs before the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles kicks in, and the OBR estimates that there will be 440,000 fewer EV sales over the next five years because of the tax. How much tax revenue will be lost because those sales never happen? Then there is the plethora of other taxes that are part of the smorgasbord: the tourism tax, the NI raid on pension contributions, the reduction in the tax-free cash ISA allowance and even a milkshake tax.
We have not even touched on the absence of the commitment to 3% of GDP on defence anywhere in the Budget. There is not a single reference to it and I do not understand how. We saw today that the service chiefs will write to the Defence Secretary to tell him that it will not be possible to deliver the strategic defence review. I would love to hear from the Minister how Labour will facilitate defence in this day and age.
The OBR has stated that not a single measure contained in the Budget will improve growth, which has, in fact, been downgraded from the figure forecast in the summer. Taxes on working people have been increased by stealth to pay for welfare. That will be Rachel Reeves’s legacy, and this is quite possibly her last Budget—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. You can refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Chancellor or by her constituency name, but not by her own name.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall draw to a close.
It comes to something when the Chancellor can stand at the Dispatch Box to deliver her Budget, make a boob joke and that not be the most offensive thing she says.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) for delivering a Budget with fairness and action to tackle the cost of living at its core, and one that will make work pay. Having sat through this debate for about eight hours, it is interesting to observe that Members on the Labour Benches are giving a voice to those vulnerable children living in poverty, while those on the Conservative Benches are simply standing up for those who own mansions. That is the difference.
I am pleased to see that around 1,990 children in my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth and nearly half a million children across the country have been lifted out of poverty, and that the degrading rape clause has been removed from child benefit. That will be the biggest change a Government have ever made to child poverty in a Parliament and it is the right thing to do for children. I know that everyone in my area will be pleased to see the £150 off their energy bills too. That is the difference our Labour Government are making to the cost of living for ordinary families.
In a coalfield community such as mine, we carry immense pride in our heritage. Standing up for former mineworkers in North Warwickshire and Bedworth is personal to me. My grandad Bill was a miner at Birch Coppice, and I grew up understanding the dignity, sacrifice and solidarity that defined that way of life. That is why I am delighted that the Government have taken the long-awaited decision to return the British Coal staff superannuation scheme surplus to its members. The last Government allowed that injustice to continue for far too long. I have campaigned tirelessly for that measure, alongside my colleagues who represent coalfield communities and have lobbied hard for the Government to do right by BCSSS members. I am immensely proud that this Government have listened to the voices of my constituents who were impacted by that unfairness.
Earlier this year, I held an event for BCSSS members in my constituency. Ray Sweet, Andy Callow, Don Jennings and others shared with me the years they spent working in and around our mines. I am delighted to be able to tell them that they will finally receive the full pension they worked so hard for. I also met a woman who joined the National Coal Board at 16. She worked for years from 5.30 am to late in the day to ensure mineworkers got paid on time and at the end of their shift. Women like her, who supported the mining industry behind the scenes, have often gone unrecognised and underappreciated. I hope they now feel the recognition they have long been owed and the nation’s gratitude for their work to keep our lights on and our homes warm. I know that for many this comes too late, and I remember them too.
I thank the Chancellor for abolishing the bingo tax. I visited Palace Bingo in Bedworth last week and met the owners, Pete, Donna and Paul, who took over the family business. It was great to see the investment they have made; there are new toilet facilities there has been a total renovation. They provide safe entertainment for hundreds of people every day of the week in Bedworth, and I know how much people in my constituency enjoy a good night out at the bingo, as do I. It is right that they are exempted from bingo tax, and that online gambling pays the price for the harm it causes.
Finally, I have listened carefully to farmers in my constituency. They know that I have passed on their concerns to the Treasury, so I am pleased to hear the Treasury’s small concessions.
I want to reassure the residents of North Warwickshire and Bedworth that this Government are on their side. For all my constituents, I am feeling positive. There is work to be done, but this Budget will continue to bring the change that we promised at the general election. The damage left by 14 years of austerity is finally being undone. This Labour Budget is putting money in the pockets of those who need it most, delivering healthcare for everyone, providing opportunities for young people, unlocking growth, delivering new homes, reducing energy bills, reducing business rates for hospitality and retail, putting more money in people’s pockets to spend in local businesses, giving us pride in our towns and powering our future. That is the difference a Labour Government can make.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I am grateful to be speaking in support of a Government who have delivered a Labour Budget that has ended the child benefit cap. That benefits 1,150 children in my constituency. The Budget is tackling the cost of living by reducing household energy bills by £150 from next April. It is raising much-needed funds for our public services by increasing taxation on online gambling and on homes worth over £2 million—mansions—and it includes another rise in the national minimum wage. This is a Labour Budget with Labour values that will achieve so much. It will positively impact millions of lives, and I am proud to support it.
It is with a heavy heart that I have to tell the Minister—this will come as no surprise to him—that the one thing I remain concerned about in the Budget is the overarching changes to inheritance tax for farmers. I am grateful to the Chancellor for listening to my concerns and those of my colleagues on the Back Benches, and for making an adjustment. The expansion of the transferability of inheritance tax allowances to widows retrospectively is welcome. It is a compassionate change, and it will allow widows to add their deceased spouse’s allowance to their own to benefit their children on their death. It is an effective doubling of their allowance, which is to be welcomed. However, I remain concerned about the long-term impact of the policy.
In my constituency of North Northumberland, there are 710 farms, and over the past year I have met at least 90 farmers. I am not from a farming background, and this past year has been a steep learning curve for me, so I have been deeply moved by the generosity, respect and patience shown to me by farming constituents. They have opened their homes and lives to me, and they tell me that the inheritance tax status quo meant stability. Farm estates could transfer smoothly from one generation to another without their work being interrupted by lengthy processes. In addition to the allowance for transfers to widows, I urge the Government to consider an elderly farmer exemption, so that those surprised by this change in their old age can retire with dignity.
One farmer recently wrote to me saying,
“My father with his father and brothers worked to buy our farm. He wanted to pass that to me 10 years ago, the legal advice at that point was to do this on death. Now, at 80 years old, he has dementia, unable to make any decision on his own and his power of attorney (me) is unable to act on his behalf.”
Agriculture has faced headwinds for many years, not least under the last Conservative Government; energy prices rocketed, and dodgy trade deals with Australia and New Zealand undercut farmers. They have also had to contend with unusually difficult weather patterns, whether it has been too hot, too dry or too wet.
By 2029-30, the changes that we are talking about will have raised only £520 million. That sounds like a lot, but it is less than two days’ debt interest. In the light of widespread farming opposition to this policy, will the Government keep this policy under review in its first two years and, if the fears of farmers are established as facts, look to alter the policy accordingly?
There is a better way forward. If we raise the threshold at which IHT kicks in, cut the relief for those above the threshold and delink agricultural property relief and business property relief, we can protect those who need protecting and invite those who can pay more to pay more. The Minister knows that the minimum share rule is just one example of that, and he may observe that this change would draw more estates into the policy. Although the number of estates brought into the policy under the minimum share rule may grow, those estates would by definition have larger assets that were less likely to be involved in a working farm, and that would therefore be more disposable.
It is exceptionally hard out there for farmers, yet from the wee small hours to late at night, and without family holidays or long weekends, they put in the work to ensure that we all have food on the table. As one farmer said to me,
“My childhood included no Christmas, home-made clothes and food grown from the veg plot. It was a frugal upbringing…Even now there is no lavishness. Holidays are scarce, the house roof leaks, windows aren’t fit for purpose and damp and mould prevails in the house. A private landlord can’t allow his tenants to live like this, but we accept these conditions. That’s ok”.
They continued that the proposal
“will bring a tax bill of £400,000. We are a modest hill farm. We cannot make this kind of profit in 20 years, never mind 10.”
Most farmers farm not to become wealthy, but because it is a way of life. The Agriculture Act 1947, brought in by the Labour party, was the first great, sustained support for British farming. We have the opportunity to provide that support again. Farmers need us. They need stability, and they want a fairer system. There is still time to achieve that. In a £1.3 trillion budget, £520 million will not make a difference to our fiscal stability, but it would make all the difference in the world to the flourishing of British farming, including in North Northumberland.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I welcome the Budget set out yesterday by the Chancellor. The Labour party was founded on the principles of social justice, redistribution and universal rights, and the progressive nature of the Budget helps to deliver on those principles. It will ensure that the very wealthiest households pay a fair share to support public services. On average, households on the lowest incomes benefit the most from this Budget and last year’s Budget policy decisions, while the increases in tax are concentrated on the highest earners. In practical terms, 90% of households will see an average net income benefit, while the richest 10% will contribute more.
We are tackling the cost of living by cutting energy bills, increasing wages and protecting the value of the state pension. This Labour Budget delivers an average of £150 off energy bills. The Budget also raises both the national living wage and the national minimum wage, putting money directly into the pockets of working people. For older people in our communities, the increase in the state pension means that 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland will be better off. All those are tangible differences that people will notice in their everyday life, thanks to this Labour Budget.
The removal of the two-child cap on universal credit will help to reduce poverty across the country, including in my constituency of Glasgow North, where 2,130 children will be better off. We are delivering that through a progressive Budget, but there is more to do across a whole range of Government Departments. I very much welcome the removal of the two-child cap, but we need to look at other policy areas, too. That is why I welcome the fact that in their mission to end child poverty, the Government and their taskforce are not just looking at the social security levers, hugely important though they are, but identifying all the levers available.
The Budget invests in Scotland. It has made an extra £820 million available for investment in our public services in Scotland, taking the additional funding to date for the Scottish Government to over £10 billion under this Labour Government. What we need now is a Scottish Government who will use those resources to invest in our public services and not fail to spend them. We need a Scottish Government who are focused on delivering for and with the people of Scotland, not focused on division and constitutional posturing.
This Labour Government, with this Labour Budget, are building a stronger and fairer country; one where living standards rise, child poverty falls and public services are renewed. This is a fair Budget, a redistributive Budget, a Labour Budget, and it is a privilege to support it.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
This Budget is about building an economy that works for working people and families, not returning to the short-term decisions of the previous Government, which left public services stretched and household finances fragile. I welcome the fact that the Government are choosing stability, fairness and long-term investment, because strengthening our country begins with putting people first. Prior to the general election, the two issues that my constituents mentioned more than any others were living costs and the state of the NHS. I am proud that, under this Government, progress has already been made on both, but while much has been achieved, there is much more to do.
Since coming into office, the Government have begun turning the tide on NHS waiting times, after years of record backlogs. For the first time in 15 years, waiting lists have started to fall; there are more than 230,000 fewer people waiting for treatment, and over 5 million extra appointments have been delivered. In Mid Cheshire, the ultra-long 65-week-plus waits are on target to be eliminated by the end of the year.
Alongside that, the NHS 10-year plan is transforming care by shifting services into communities, embracing digital innovation and focusing on prevention. Families in my constituency are already beginning to feel the impact of that progress. In Northwich, the new Cheshire and Merseyside surgical centre has opened at the Victoria infirmary. It will treat 12,000 patients each year, including a large number of high-volume, low-complexity cases, to bear down on waiting lists further. Meanwhile, Leighton hospital’s rebuild—which was shamefully delayed by the previous Government, despite the dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issues hanging over the hospital—is not only fully funded, but moving on apace. I share the Government’s commitment to ensuring that patients receive timely treatment, staff have the tools that they need to deliver it, and the public can rely on an NHS that works for everyone.
The Budget also addresses one of the most pressing challenges facing families: the cost of living. Rising prices have put pressure on household budgets. Over the past year, action has been taken to ease everyday costs. That action includes the largest increase in the national minimum wage in years, free breakfast clubs in hundreds of primary schools—including not one, two, three or four but five in Mid Cheshire—and expanded energy support through the warm homes discount. For households in my constituency, those measures help to stabilise family finances, support working parents and ensure that children start the school day ready to learn.
The Budget goes further by delivering stronger cost of living support through targeted measures for low-income households. We could talk about the rise in the national minimum wage, which will help working families, or about the scrapping of levies from energy bills, saving families £150 on average next year and reducing pressure on their budgets, but the removal of the two-child benefit cap, which will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty, including 2,420 across Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich, will be most significant. Labour believes that every child should have the opportunity to reach their full potential—that someone’s background and circumstances, and who they know or where they come from, should not shape their life more than their talent, creativity and determination. As Gordon Brown said,
“The two-child benefit cap was a scar on the country’s soul”.
I will be proud to be a Labour Member when we vote to scrap it.
Together, those steps will boost household incomes in my constituency and across the country, providing families with not just short-term relief but lasting financial confidence. Our priorities—reducing debt, strengthening the NHS and tackling the cost of living crisis—are interconnected. A stable economy enables investment in public services. A stronger NHS supports a healthier, more productive population. Easing cost pressures gives families the confidence to plan for the future. Together, they form a coherent strategy for long-term prosperity.
The measures announced in the Budget will help to build a stronger economy, a healthier NHS and a fairer society, and will deliver tangible improvements for Mid Cheshire and communities across the country.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered her Budget in the most challenging global economic circumstances; there is sluggish growth across the international economy, and we have an economic inheritance from the Conservative party of high public debt and low investment. Despite that, she delivered a Budget that will tackle poverty, invest in growth and provide fairer chances for all.
For Scotland, the Budget delivers an additional £820 million for public services. Since the Government came into power, over £10 billion has been pledged for public services in Scotland. The Chancellor talked of the importance of Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar making the case for investment in Scotland. He is already achieving more for Scotland in opposition than our failing SNP Government. Imagine what he could do leading Scotland’s Government, ensuring that those funds are spent to far better effect in our communities. This is the opportunity that Scotland has next May. The Budget shows what Labour Government can achieve for Scotland.
The Budget will benefit my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife in so many ways. Ending the two-child cap means that more than 7,000 children in Fife will have a better start in life. Thousands of workers in Fife will see their pay increase, thanks to the rise in the minimum wage. Households across the Kingdom of Fife will benefit from £150 off their heating bills.
I am delighted that 178 people in Fife who are members of the BCSSS mineworkers’ pension scheme will finally see the interest in their pension fund protected, with an average increase in their pension of £100 per week. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for that change in the scheme, not only on the Labour Benches but in our local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) was right to pay tribute to Alan Kenney of Glenrothes in my constituency, who has made the case for this change with such dedication and eloquence.
This is a Budget that shows we will not return to the Conservative party’s austerity measures, which resulted in nothing but harm and stalled economic growth. Instead, we will invest in building an economy that is stronger, where everyone has a chance to benefit from increasing prosperity. This Budget provides more chances in employment for our young people, with the youth guarantee for every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months, and the biggest ever investment in employability support for disabled people and those with health conditions in more than a generation, increasing funding to up to £1 billion a year across the UK. That is particularly important for Scotland, where the disability employment gap is higher than the UK average.
It is vital that these funds are used to the greatest effect in creating jobs for disabled people, who are too often excluded from the workplace. We should look to replicate the success of schemes such as the “All In” employability programme delivered by the charity Enable, which I had the privilege of working for before my election. We should also look to support the ambition of Outlyer, an entertainment company, co-founded by Emmanuel Kelly and Chris Martin of Coldplay, that has a mission to employ at least 1,000 disabled people over eight years in the growing entertainment sector, in jobs that offer genuine career paths with transferable skills to disabled people. That is the kind of ambition we should all have for economic growth in our country—for it to benefit everyone in our society.
This Budget balances fiscal responsibility with fairness and aspiration, investing in the defence and renewables industries, which offer such hope to the local economies of Glenrothes and Mid Fife, providing fairness through measures that help families with the cost of living, tackling the scourge of child poverty in our country and offering opportunities to more of our people to reap the rewards of employment and skills. That is why it is a Budget I am proud to support.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
My constituents may recall that I once started a speech in this place with the words “Potholes, potholes, potholes”—I thank the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for that glance of recognition. No one will be more delighted than the people of Congleton with the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that we will double the road maintenance budget over the course of this Parliament. The road safety Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is in her place, so I will take this opportunity to ask that she makes sure my constituents get their fair share of that money. As she has heard me say before, my roads are dark, fast, dangerous and poorly maintained, so I look forward to us bringing that money through progressively over time.
The cost of living crisis is another major issue for my constituents. The £150 off energy bills will be extremely welcome for families in my constituency, as will the freeze on prescription charges and the freeze on rail fares—something that has not happened for 30 years. I am proud that we have put up the minimum wage, because work should pay, and families working very hard every day should be able to afford the things they need.
With regard to pensioners, we have maintained the triple lock, and the average pensioner on the full state pension will get another £575 next year. Nationally, three quarters of pensioners will remain eligible for the warm home discount, which is very important.
I understand that removing the two-child benefit cap will be contentious for some people, but it will instantly take 1,310 children out of poverty in our local area. The widening of free school meal eligibility has also given 2,000 extra children a warm meal every day. Of course, we all want to see children thriving in our community. The reality is that we are exceptionally affluent in our constituency. I know that for many people it does not feel like it, but we are one of the top 20 most affluent places in the country.
Nationally, we are spending £2.2 billion on temporary accommodation. There are 174,000 children in temporary accommodation, 80 of whom died in that temporary accommodation last year. We have to spend money on relieving poverty for our poorest children and households, because that is the only way that these shameful figures will change. Our children are becoming shorter compared to their European counterparts, because of malnourishment in our communities. There is a moral case to do this, and in all likelihood there will be savings from this investment as well.
I know that local infrastructure concerns many of my constituents. Some of the figures I will give have been provided before, but they bear repeating. We are spending over £1 billion on rebuilding Leighton hospital. We are spending £60 million on rebuilding Sandbach school. We are spending £740,000 on improvement’s to the Ashfield Medical Centre. We are spending the best part of £1.5 million across three local hospices that serve my community, following lobbying from me and other Labour MPs in the Cheshire East area. I am extremely proud of the things that this Budget and the previous one are delivering for my constituents.
On local high streets, we all value our independent businesses, so I was proud to see the permanent reduction in business rates for small independents, whether they are pubs, restaurants or shops. I was also pleased to see that small and medium-sized enterprises, of which there are many in my constituency, will get the training costs fully reimbursed for their apprenticeships. That is good for local young people and for businesses.
I am also extremely proud of the British industry competitiveness scheme, which will allow businesses in energy intensive industries, such as Diamond Electronics, which I visited in Smallwood, and CLD Systems in Sandbach, to be able to reduce their energy costs and improve their competitiveness in the long term. There is a consultation now open on how we do that, and I encourage local businesses to engage with it.
Lastly, I alongside other colleagues called for a gambling tax, and I was very pleased to see it included in the Budget. I have spoken to constituents who are really struggling with online gambling problems. That industry needs to pay for the problems it is creating. I also very much support the mansion tax—this is the way to a fairer society. The Budget has brought economic stability, fair taxes and high-quality public services, and I truly believe in it.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
This Budget comes at a crucial time for the country and this Government. I say that because I am not blind to the public mood. It is a mood that calls for more change and, fundamentally, I think that only the Labour party can deliver the change that we need.
To understand the decisions we made in the Budget, Members must bear in mind what we inherited. The economy was a cupboard left not only bare by Liz Truss, but with broken hinges and no remaining shelves because of the decade and a half of austerity that preceded her. This Labour Government were not elected because the last lot had done a good job; we were elected because there was a mess. Throughout our whole electoral mandate at the last election was the message that we should make things better: we should improve the cost of living, support poorer children, and fix our public services, from roads to the health service. Changing Government takes time. I am one of the many alumni of local government in this place, and I never thought I would dream of the speed of action and the immediacy of decision making that we can get in a townhall.
I will speak briefly about supporting businesses such as those in Calder Valley, and lifting children out of poverty. I welcome the Government’s work to transform business rates relief and protect our high streets. Retail, hospitality and leisure are central to our communities in Calder Valley. In Calderdale, 3,200 businesses will benefit from lower rates. When we talk about this change, we are talking about the clothes shop in Brighouse, the café in Hebden Bridge, the pub in Todmorden and the curry house in Elland. They are places that keep our towns alive and bring people together.
Just as our high streets are vital to our community life, our manufacturing is vital to so much else in our nation and our national security. In Calder Valley we are proud of our manufacturing—we are known to some across the country as “valve valley”, and I promise I will make that name stick in this place. Those businesses are ready to contribute to Britain’s national interest and security. The Chancellor’s commitment to changing procurement laws, so that when national security is at stake we support skilled jobs in our country, is common sense.
SMEs in Calder Valley also welcome the fact that apprenticeships will now be free, which will help them to secure the next generation of British manufacturing. However, apprenticeships are not just jobs; they are opportunities and a sense of pride for so many families.
I have talked about business, but I will also talk about the heart of the Budget. I thank the Chancellor for removing the two-child benefit cap. I know from my time working at the Child Poverty Action Group, at Oxfam on UK poverty, and at Church Action on Poverty that this change is one of the most significant steps we can take to reduce child poverty. Measures in this Budget will lift half a million children out of poverty. Children growing up poor are less likely to succeed at school, twice as likely to be obese, and more likely to suffer from poor health throughout their life. As adults, they earn less. The vandalism of the rapacious rise in child poverty under the last Government will echo through generations. This country had the largest rise in child poverty among high-income countries between 2013 and 2023, with deep poverty rising by 67%. That is the legacy of Conservative Members.
The need could not be clearer. In Calder Valley, 5,624 children were living in poverty in 2023-24, compared with 4,317 in 2014-15. That is a rise of more than 1,000 on the Tories’ watch, and behind every one of those numbers is a kid who deserves a fair chance, and a parent fighting to get it for them. Nearly 2,000 children in Calder Valley will have their lives made better because of this Budget, but it is not just one measure; it is a strategy—free breakfast clubs in schools, the expansion of subsidised childcare, and a higher minimum wage. That will make our country stronger into the future, but there is more work ahead. Families need certainty that support will continue, and businesses need confidence that investment in British industry will be matched by action, skills and infrastructure.
This Budget is a turning point, and a signal that Britain is ready to move beyond austerity and neglect towards fairness, opportunity and prosperity. Above all, it is about trust—trust that the Government will stand for families when times are hard, trust that investment in British industry will mean real opportunities for towns such as mine, and trust that fairness, not austerity, will guide our decisions. That will build confidence in our system, our Government, and in our country as a place to live, invest and prosper.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure the best is yet to come.
I am pleased to address the House on a day with bond yields falling, growth figures for the year revised upwards, and an opportunity to reflect on the announcements made yesterday and what they mean for people in Welwyn Hatfield. I want to try to address two of the macro trends that shape the UK economy today, and which would frame the choices available to any Chancellor, irrespective of their party allegiance.
The first trend is the happy reality that people in the UK are living longer than ever before. Millions of Brits are living longer and healthier lives, staying active, spending more time with grandchildren, playing sport, music, doing charitable work and enjoying holidays. That is unquestionably and unequivocally good news, but inequality among older people is stark and real. Lifespans vary hugely by postcode, and this Government’s focus on the NHS is essential if we are to close that gap. However, one challenge is perhaps even more profound, because the ratio between the working-age population and those who are retired has been transformed. Since the creation of the welfare state there has been almost a doubling of what is called the “dependency ratio”, and we see that vividly in how it impacts Government spending.
By 2030-31, welfare spending supporting pensioners will have increased to £195 billion per year. Welfare spending supporting families with child benefit, including the changes announced yesterday, will be £14 billion per year. Welfare spending is going up
disproportionately to support pensioners. That reflects the happy truth that people are living longer, but when we discuss the future of welfare in this House, let us always be mindful of the facts.
I am afraid that the second theme relates to the biggest act of economic self-harm in a generation. The Brexit deal put up trade barriers with our closest and largest trading partners. We have 16,000 fewer businesses in the UK exporting to the European Union, a surge in food prices, bureaucracy at the border, and a hit to our economy of at least £100 billion. We must repair the damage. It is critical that the Government continue to drive forward the UK-EU reset, and do so at pace, with a sanitary and phytosanitary deal that could reduce food prices, and a youth mobility deal that will be good for growth and for cultural connections. UK-EU relations were on the floor thanks to the last Government. We are rebuilding the relationship, and I will continue to advocate that my colleagues in Government do that at pace, with urgency, and with increasing ambition, because it is so fundamental to all our growth prospects for the future.
I commend the Chancellor on increasing the headroom on her stability rule. The markets were looking for reaffirmation that the Government are serious about meeting their targets, and they got their answer. Bond yields fell yesterday, meaning the cost of borrowing fell too. Coupled with the inflation figures last week, the case for another cut in interest rates looks stronger than ever. If the story of this Parliament is interest rates falling and lower mortgage repayments, then the story of yesterday’s Budget was one that coupled stability with fairness.
Removing the two-child limit was morally and economically the right choice. I spoke a moment ago about the relatively small cost of this measure to the Exchequer in the context of welfare spending, but in practice we are talking about £17.25, a very modest amount to many people, but a sum that will be transformative to the families currently living below the poverty line.
On the cost of living, the Budget set out a series of decisions that will help the day-to-day lives of ordinary people in Welwyn Hatfield and across the country: the bus cap maintained, train fares frozen for the first time in 30 years, prescription charges held steady, and a major intervention on energy bills that will see them fall universally by around £150 next year, in addition to the warm homes payment this winter, which will benefit at least 10,000 people in Welwyn Hatfield and 2.7 million across the country.
The economic fundamentals are challenging. In these circumstances, it is an even more significant achievement by this Labour Government to meet the fiscal rules, to calm the gilt markets, to provide extra support on the cost of living and to drive down child poverty. This Budget is responsible and fair, and it sets a foundation on which to build in the future.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I came to this House determined to speak up for the people I represent, particularly those who feel under pressure, children whose life chances are held back, and 1,500 former mineworkers. In my maiden speech, I spoke about our proud mining heritage. When I made that speech, this Labour Government had just delivered justice for members of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme and, just over a year later, I am immensely proud that the same has been done for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. These former mineworkers, who built the communities that I am proud to represent and helped to power our nation, had to wait far too long to even be heard, so I commend this Government on righting this historical wrong, but even more so all those campaigners on never giving up. The action taken by this Government will mean a 41% boost to the pensions of 40,000 former mineworkers.
Turning to the cost of living, we have taken action to reduce energy bills by taking 75% of the renewables obligation off bills, and the energy company obligation will be scrapped as well, saving my constituents an average of £150 a year. That saving will be added to by the first freeze to rail fares in 30 years, the continued freeze on prescription charges and the £89 that they will not have to pay on fuel duty.
As the Chancellor said, one policy above all has supressed the life chances of children in the most deprived households and neighbourhoods in our country: the two-child benefit cap. Scrapping it will lift 2,430 children in my constituency out of poverty. Contrary to the stereotypes often peddled by Opposition Members, almost 60% of the families who will benefit from this change are in work. While the cost of scrapping the limit is £3.5 billion, the cost of child poverty is £39 billion. Behind that staggering sum are life chances blighted and immense talent that our country is missing out on. Along with expanding free school meals, increasing the minimum wage, introducing Best Start family hubs and introducing apprenticeships that do not cost small businesses, these changes will ensure that all children and young people have the best start in life.
Finally, another matter close to the hearts of many in my constituency and county is growth in rural communities. Many people in rural towns and villages have felt left behind by successive Governments, and that is particularly true in the world of farming, which often feels far removed from the corridors of Whitehall. This Government deserve great credit for the biggest farming budget in history and for getting money out of the door, something that the Conservative party failed to do.
However, while visiting farms in my constituency, I have heard repeatedly that changes to agricultural property relief are hanging over many farmers and their families, and supressing confidence. The personal impact of that was brought home to me when I sat down with a couple in their mid-80s, 15th generation livestock farmers in my constituency, who told me about farming families that they know being affected by mental ill health, particularly among elderly farmers. They told me that they feel paralysed in the face of these changes, not knowing if there is a way to ensure that their farm has a 16th generation.
The changes are holding back growth in the agricultural sector, as many are not investing in new machinery or rapidly advancing technologies. However, following concerted efforts by many Labour Members, we have the change that will enable spouses to transfer their allowance to a surviving partner. That will take some farmers out of inheritance tax and will reduce the bills of many others, so it is welcome.
Looking ahead, I am encouraged by the Government’s relentless focus on farm profitability and changes to the planning system, which will free up farmers to get on with the things that help their businesses and infrastructure and the environment. Baroness Batters’ review, due to be published next month, will be critical in charting a path to more profitable farming, and I and many Labour Members will engage with it keenly. Rural Britain is ready and willing to make a greater contribution to the vital mission of growing the economy and ensuring that the benefits are felt in every corner of our country.
Yesterday’s Budget made it clear that there will be no return to austerity or short-termism. It rectifies the injustices of the past for members of the BCSSS. It acts right now, in the present, to cut the cost of living, and it safeguards Britain’s future. This is a Budget that keeps us on the path to renew Britain and improve life for people in the towns and villages I represent in Cannock Chase, so I very much welcome it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will start speeches by the Front Benchers at 4.40 pm. With the remaining time, I call Phil Brickell.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget. It will improve the lives of my constituents by putting £150 back into the pockets of working people through removing levies on energy bills and by lifting 2,570 children out of poverty. This is a Budget with fairness at its core; it reduces child poverty, has more funding for the NHS and has more investment in school libraries. After the chaos of the 2022 Truss mini-Budget, the Chancellor has shown what real fiscal discipline looks like: inflation falling, growth prioritised and proper headroom restored.
I am particularly pleased that the Chancellor has stared down the sloganeers at both extremes. She has rejected the failed trickle-down instincts of the populist right, which bequeathed this Government with a legacy of failed austerity and profligate wasting of taxpayers’ money on dodgy PPE contracts during the pandemic. She has also dismissed unevidenced calls from the left-wing populists for a wealth tax, when it has no answers to the hard questions about capital flight, offshore assets or our overburdened enforcement agencies. All the while, she has increased the burden on those with the broadest shoulders, including via the new high-value council tax surcharge on homes valued at more than £2 million, ensuring that homeowners in mansions are not paying less in council tax than someone living in a mid-terrace in Blackrod.
I thank the Chancellor for heeding my calls by introducing new measures to tackle high street tax dodging and organised crime. The National Crime Agency estimates that some £12 billion in criminal cash is generated in the UK every year, including in the suspicious vape shops we have all clocked while walking round our constituencies. Those suspect enterprises not only erode the civic pride we have in our high streets, but undercut genuine businesses looking to provide a service and make ends meet. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to a cross-Government taskforce to tackle tax abuse and money laundering on our high streets, backed by £50 million every year over the next three years, which is funded by an increase in the economic crime levy paid for by the banks and other professional services firms. That is despite the platitudes from Lib Dem Members saying that banks are not being asked to pay more, when actually they are.
I will bring the issue of tax dodging on our high streets to life with an example of just how egregious some of these wheezes truly are. In the brief time that I have, let me talk a little about the world of snails—snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and snail cannibalism. London Centric’s Jim Waterson recently published an investigative report on this topic. It details how former Lancashire shoe salesman, Terry Ball, runs elaborate snail-based tax avoidance schemes that are costing councils millions of pounds simply by placing boxes of snails in vacant office buildings in an attempt to exempt them from business rates.
The scheme, perfected over many years to prevent the snails from eating one another and stop mass snail fornication, allows unscrupulous individuals to claim that empty warehouses are being used for agricultural purposes. In turn, landlords are granted a business rates exemption. If the firms in question are challenged by the local council, they are simply liquidated. They hold no assets, so no business rates can be claimed back, and they magically reappear under the guise of another mollusc-based enterprise registered at Companies House—it is taking shell companies to the extreme.
One local council has reported a loss of £370,000 in tax receipts just because of this specific mollusc-based wheeze. This is not just a quirky anecdote; it is a hard-edged example of how loopholes in our system are being exploited, made all the easier by the Tories’ decision in the last Parliament to abolish the Office of Tax Simplification. Indeed, the very same council is reporting losses of £10 million a year due to non-payment of business rates.
I welcome the further steps announced by the Chancellor yesterday, such as rewards for informants of high-value tax fraud, extra funding for trading standards, enhancing tax transparency on real estate, 350 new criminal investigators to tackle fraud and illicit tobacco and vapes, and a boost to HMRC to go after tax dodgers and their unscrupulous advisers. We need to do a lot more, but I commend the Chancellor. I urge her to continue in the same vein by reforming reliefs, strengthening enforcement and sending a message that Britain no longer tolerates tax gimmicks—whether involving snails, shell companies, or slimy advisers.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
To govern is to choose, and the Chancellor has chosen. She has chosen spending over saving, higher taxes over welfare reform, and benefits Britain over working Britain. She would rather raise taxes by £26 billion than shave a single penny off the welfare bill. She will make people who work and save pay more for the benefits of millions who do not.
I say that the Chancellor chose, but are these her choices or those of Labour Back Benchers? Just a few months ago, when debating the Government’s personal independence payment reform Bill, those Back Benchers were the ones who stood up and said things like, “I didn’t come here to cut benefits.” They were the ones in and out of meetings with No. 10 while the debate was going on in this Chamber, and they were the ones who forced the Disability Minister to stand up during that debate and announce that there would, in fact, be no savings. The Government’s welfare Bill then became a spending Bill, which Labour Back Benchers all voted for, of course.
The Chancellor could have used the Budget to right that wrong—or could she? The wolves have been circling ever since. This was not a Budget for Britain; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. It was a “save our skin” Budget, but in saving her own skin, the Chancellor is selling the country down the river at a cost of £26 billion to taxpayers and 200,000 jobs, on top of the 150,000 that have already been lost since Labour has been in power and the thousands more that the unemployment rights Bill will destroy.
Yuan Yang
Three quarters of the tax raised by this Budget will go towards building fiscal headroom, doubling it—something that previous Conservative Chancellors never did. Does the hon. Lady welcome the investment in the gilt markets that international investors have now shown, demonstrating their confidence in the UK economy?
Helen Whately
This Budget is simple: taxes are going up on working people to pay for more benefits. That is the story of this Budget.
The Chancellor told the country that she was spending to bring down the cost of living. Really? For whom? Inflation is up, tax is up and wage growth is down. The only group of people who are going to be better off are those on benefits—the 10 million people of working age whose benefits will be uplifted by inflation, the thousands more who will go on to sickness benefits in the year ahead, and the half a million households who will get money from the lifting of the two-child cap. Those households will receive £5,000 more on average by the end of this decade, at a cost of £3 billion to the taxpayer, and some will get much more. A family with five children could get an extra £10,500, while a family with eight children will be able to get an extra £21,000, nearly as much as the annual pay before tax of a full-time worker on the minimum wage.
Labour Members have told us again and again today how Labour is fixing child poverty by giving out that extra money. We all care about children—we all want children to get the best start in life. [Interruption.] Come on. Labour Members are chuntering at me, but they cannot doubt the fact that everyone in this place wants children to get the best start in life. Handing out money might improve the poverty statistics that they like so much to crow about, but it will not solve the problem. Work is the best way out of poverty, and the Government’s handout will make parents less likely to work.
There are couples across the country—couples in work—who are wondering whether they can afford another child. Thanks to this Budget, their taxes are going up, and their incomes may well go down. Thanks to this Budget, some of them will decide to have no more children, or no children at all. That is sad, and it is unfair. Labour Members have been crowing about the Budget, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said earlier, the threshold rises it contains could even drag some working families below the relative poverty line that they like to talk about so much.
Paul Waugh
The hon. Lady refers to the threshold freeze. Why did she vote for seven years of frozen thresholds?
Helen Whately
The sad fact is that the country went through a pandemic and we had to get the country’s finances under control. This Chancellor promised that she would not increase taxes on working people, but that is exactly what she has done. Who can trust her? I know that people out there do not.
If all we heard about this Budget was the speeches of Government Members, we would think something wonderful was going on. I hate to shatter their delusions, but the fact is that people out there are despairing. People have been saying to me, “If all the Government are going to do is take your money in taxes, why work? Why bother?” We are seeing those who can, from successful business people to talented future entrepreneurs, leaving the country. The Government are killing aspiration and growth, and, in fact, savings. The OBR says that household savings will fall as a result of the Budget, from 6% to 2% by 2030. The Budget is an attack on people who are simply doing the right thing: working, saving, trying to pay their way in life and trying to build a better future.
The Government could make different choices. If they were willing to get a grip of the welfare bill and bring it down, they could cut taxes on working people. We have heard from several Ministers, and from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions himself, that the system needs reform, but their actions say otherwise. Working-age welfare spending is up £40 billion in this Budget. The Timms review’s terms of reference tell us that there are no savings to see here. The Secretary of State will not even say the word “savings”. They say one thing, but do another. It sums them up. After all those promises not to put taxes up on working people, here we are with two Budgets in a row hiking taxes on working people.
It does not have to be this way. We have identified £47 billion of savings from public spending. Of that, £23 billion is welfare savings from doing the right thing, such as stopping giving sickness benefits to people with anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stopping handing out benefits to foreign nationals. It is not kind or compassionate to trap people on benefits. It is not fair on people who are working to pay the bills, and it is simply not affordable for our country to go on like this.
The Minister likes to chat a lot during debates, and he has said that he stood for office “to stop drawing charts”—[Interruption.] He might like to listen to what he actually said, although he does not like to listen to other people. He said that he stood for office
“to stop drawing charts and start changing them.”
He has certainly achieved that. Inflation is up, unemployment is up, borrowing is up and public spending is up. Perhaps he can tell us which of those he is most proud of.
The Minister, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the entire Government will all leave their mark on our country with this Budget. At their last Budget, they dug a hole. With this Budget, they have dug it deeper. Instead of cutting the welfare bill, they are adding to it. Instead of getting people into work, they are putting them on benefits. Instead of backing workers, they are funding stay-at-homers using the hard-earned money of Britain’s taxpayers. That is the choice they have made, and we reject it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to close today’s debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions, including my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), for Exeter (Steve Race), for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for North Northumberland (David Smith), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who all made strong cases for this Budget.
I listened carefully as Opposition MP after Opposition MP talked down the British economy, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did, talking down British workers and talking down British entrepreneurs. I have been trying to remember what it reminded me of. I was racking my brains, but then it came to me: they are just reading out exactly the same script that they had at exactly this time last year. The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), frothing with his usual excitement, claimed that Britain would spend 2025 in recession. He said:
“‘Could we be in recession?’ Yes we could.”
That was his forecast.
The actual figures are in, and the truth is that Britain in 2025 did not just avoid recession, but beat the forecast. The OBR has revised up growth this year from 1% to 1.5%. Let us look at wages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) said, wages are up in the forecast and, far more importantly, in people’s pay packets. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Conservative Government, and there is much more to do.
Changing Britain was always going to be hard, and we now know that the damage from the last decade of austerity and Brexit was worse than previously thought. That lies behind the productivity downgrade that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) rightly raised, but the question is how we respond to that news.
Sir John Hayes
I notice that the Minister is wearing a William Morris—or William Morris-esque—tie, and what Morris understood was the importance of craft and skills. The Government addressed apprenticeships in the Budget in a minor way, but does the Minister know that simultaneously the skills White Paper envisages downgrading apprenticeships by diluting the competencies they confer, thereby undermining their reputation with learners and employers?
Torsten Bell
What I know is that youth apprenticeships fell by 40% under the Conservative party. That is what failure looks like. I am coming on to some of those matters.
We do not want to grow this economy by simply borrowing more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) rightly pointed out before he turned, at some length, to snails. There is nothing progressive about arguing that we should spend more than £1 in every £10 of taxpayers’ money on debt interest —money that would be better spent on schools and hospitals—so Liz Truss and the leader of the Greens should stay exactly where they belong and where they both started out: in the youth wing of the Liberal Democrats, far away from Government.
We in the Labour party will cut borrowing in every single year—more than in any other G7 country—and more than double the headroom against our fiscal rules. We are cutting borrowing and giving businesses the confidence to invest, and cutting inflation too. We are taking £150 off energy bills, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years—as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) set out—and extending the fuel duty freeze. All this knocks 0.4% off inflation next year, helping interest rates—which have already been cut five times since the election—to keep on falling, helping businesses to expand and getting mortgages down.
What will not be coming down is public investment, which the OBR says boosts our economy. The pro-growth choice is not to return to the austerity of the past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) set out. Austerity saw Tory Chancellors slash public investment, and repeatedly scrap and delay projects—the worst kind of short-term political fixes, with the worst kind of long-term economic consequences. This Budget presses ahead with an extra £120 billion of capital investment.
It is exactly because this Government are confident about Britain’s future that we are going to invest in it. Sizewell C is going ahead, and we are building the UK’s first small modular reactor at Wylfa—the biggest industrial investment in north Wales for a generation. We are also building the lower Thames crossing. Infrastructure is being built in every corner of Britain. The blockers and the pessimists, and the gloomsters and the doomsters, are being taken on, confronted and defeated. The Opposition parties have never seen a housing development or energy project that they did not want to block, but those days are done. Britain is getting back in the building business.
The Budget also contains necessary and fair choices on tax, which hon. Members have raised repeatedly. We have not hidden from that fact, nor am I hiding from the fact that we are asking everybody to contribute by further freezing tax thresholds towards the end of this Parliament. I hear the chuntering and the howls from the Conservatives, but where did this year’s frozen thresholds come from? Them. Who put in place next year’s freeze? Them. They announced threshold freezes, they defended threshold freezes, they voted for threshold freezes, and they cannot howl with outrage about them now. In case all of that is not clear enough to them, let me spell it out: of the revenue raised from frozen thresholds, over three quarters comes from the choices made on their watch. The difference between us and them is that we are not ducking the long-needed reforms that our tax system needs—reforms that mean we can keep the contribution from workers as low as possible.
We have already abolished non-dom status, raised capital gains tax and ended tax breaks for private schools. The Budget brings an end to the disgrace of someone in a terraced house in Blackpool paying more in council tax than someone in a £10 million mansion in Westminster—or what the shadow Chancellor called an ordinary family home. If he had had more time, I am sure he would have gone on to worry about people with an ordinary family deer park, duck pond and stables.
Torsten Bell
I will come to the hon. Lady in a second, because she and the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) told us that the Liberal Democrats wanted wealth taxes, while continuing their record run of opposing every single wealth tax put in front of them, and conveniently forgetting that the Liberal Democrats tried and failed to introduce just such a wealth tax in government —a level of convenient amnesia matched only by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) when reminiscing about his school days.
Sarah Olney
Because the Minister was maintaining his own running commentary throughout my speech, he probably missed me making the point that, although he keeps saying that this is equalising council tax between poorer areas and richer areas, he must admit that it in fact does nothing of the sort. When people owning £2 million houses in Putney pay their £2,500 levy on top of their council tax, they will still only be paying the same amount of council tax as people living in the lowest band of properties in my constituency. There are arguments to be had about the mansion tax, but can he stop saying that it equalises council tax rates in different parts of the country, because it does nothing of the sort?
Torsten Bell
I did not say anything of the sort. I said that we are not going to have a £10 million mansion in Westminster paying less tax than a terraced house in Blackpool, and that has been brought to an end by this Budget.
I have heard the worries of some Opposition Members about the surcharge, and I want to assure the House that less than 1% of properties will be affected, and even for the £10 million mansion I have mentioned, it will not exceed £7,500 a year. To put that in perspective, it is not even enough to bribe a Russian-sympathising, Putin-praising Reform politician—or a traitor, as we should always call them.
Other reforms in the Budget will ensure that everyone who drives on our roads helps to maintain them. It will address the fact that tenants pay higher taxes than their landlords and tackle some of the tax breaks that have exploded in recent years, disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. That is the fair thing to do, and it is the responsible thing to do.
I know that others want to take a different approach, and I heard representations from some to raise income tax. Who was particularly keen? The shadow Chancellor. He told eager listeners—[Interruption.] I think he should listen. He told eager listeners at the Conservative party conference that he would “go for income tax”. In fact, he was more enthusiastic than that, going on to label it the best “thing to do”. We have not taken his advice, and are instead delivering major reforms—reforms ducked by Tory Chancellor after Tory Chancellor.
We have heard a lot about welfare today, and I recognise why. It is because our welfare system is failing, and we are changing it. We are undoing the huge incentive to be labelled too sick to work that the Conservative party built into universal credit, and the OBR has confirmed that this will move tens of thousands more people into work. The shadow Chancellor claimed he had a plan to reform welfare, but he did not mention that it was quashed by the courts. What he actually did as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was to oversee the subsidised leasing of luxury cars, with the ordinary taxpayer bearing the cost of tax breaks for Mercedes and BMWs on the Motability scheme. Well, those days are done. The scheme has itself removed luxury cars, and it has committed to half of its cars being built in Britain. We are reforming its tax breaks to save over £1 billion in the coming year.
Torsten Bell
I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
The last Government cancelled face-to-face assessments for health benefits; this Government are bringing them back. The last Government also oversaw a scandal that has received far too little attention. They allowed people who came to Britain for just a few years—people who left, and never had any intention of returning—not only to buy a state pension, but to buy it on the cheap. The Conservative Government did not just waste money here at home; they wasted it across Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and we are bringing this overseas pension scandal to a close.
What this Government will never do is pretend that the Tory policy of making children poor does anything other than cost us all in the long run. Child poverty costs this country £40 billion a year. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to be in work as an adult, and they earn 25% less at age 30. We tackle child poverty not only because it is a moral imperative, as was laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), but because it is an economic one. This Government will scrap the two-child limit, we will lift over half a million children out of poverty and we will deliver the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record.
Everyone can see what the Conservatives are trying to do. They cannot defend their record, and we all know why. They have nothing to say about Britain’s future, as the Leader of the Opposition made patently clear yesterday, and now they are salivating at the prospect of trying to hide their total lack of policy behind the cheap, divisive, lazy politics of talking about “Benefits Street”. Well, bring it on, because this Budget is for every street, with potholes being filled, neighbourhood police back on the streets and an NHS that is actually there when we need it. It is a Budget for every street in cutting borrowing because that helps not just mortgage payers, but employers; it is a Budget for every street in cutting energy bills because the cost of living crisis has seeped into everyone’s homes—rich and poor, north and south; and it is a Budget for every street because child poverty exists in every part of Britain, limiting life chances, wasting talents and undermining not just some childhoods, but all of them. With borrowing down, energy bills cut and public services rebuilt, this is a Budget for every street in Britain.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Gregor Poynton.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 1 December.
Government Transparency and Accountability
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I hope I speak for everyone in the House when I say that it is a special privilege to be elected to represent our constituents. The British people put their trust in each and every one of us to be their voice in this place. Our nation prides itself on a strong democracy, and the role of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition is critical to that. I remind hon. Members on the Government Benches that the relationship between Opposition and Government is symbiotic: the Opposition are here not merely to be a critic, but to subject a Government to scrutiny, which is a vital safeguard of public trust. Amplifying the voices of the British people, asking the questions that they want to see answered and offering an alternative vision for the United Kingdom are essential roles of an Opposition in a democracy. Government opaqueness is not conducive to such accountability.
The Prime Minister seems to agree. He said he would deliver
“a different way of working. One of openness, of collaboration and transparency in everything we do”.
However, Ministers have shown a complete disregard for Parliament, the ministerial code and the Nolan principles by refusing to submit themselves to scrutiny and by withholding information from Parliament without good reason. There are a number of levers put in our hands to help with scrutiny: written questions, oral questions, urgent questions and debates on the Floor of the House, including Adjournment debates such as this one. One further lever that Members can use to hold the Government to account and ensure transparency is writing letters directly to Ministers.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the Chancellor has had a busy week, but when I and my right hon. Friends wrote to her over 12 months ago, after last year’s Budget, to express our concerns about the rise in national insurance and how it would affect the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance, we did so out of a deep concern for what the policy would mean for those charities, which deliver crucial, lifesaving care and that support our NHS every day. Despite my office chasing that correspondence, and despite our raising it in the House repeatedly and raising it with members of the Procedure Committee, we have had no reply in over 12 months. I raised the matter as a point of order earlier this week, and it has now been acknowledged that the Chancellor has the letter and excuses for the lack of response have been made, but we have still not received a reply. But, after the Budget yesterday, I guess the answer to whether the Government will help air ambulances is no.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be thinking that this is one isolated error, but unfortunately that is not the case. A constituent of mine who has 15 years’ experience as a church warden in a village contacted me to outline the huge difference that a scheme would have on efforts to fund urgent repairs, and how removing it would harm this vital community asset. I sent my constituent’s correspondence to the Chancellor and asked for her comments on the concerns expressed. On 21 January I was informed that my correspondence had been transferred to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, yet despite chasing I received no response whatsoever. It is 323 days since I wrote to the Chancellor and 310 days since it was passed to the Culture Secretary—no response.
On 23 September 2024 I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology regarding my constituent’s concerns about broadband speed in his village. On 4 December 2024—relatively quickly for this Government—I received a response, but my constituent saw potential errors in the response, so I wrote back to the Minister on 23 April 2025 to request that he look into these important matters. Again, despite chasing, I received no response until 20 November 2025, 211 days after that April letter, to confirm that the Department
“aim to respond within 20 working days”.
You could not make it up.
It does not stop there. I wrote to the Department for Business and Trade on 6 June about the UK bioethanol industry and received no response. I sent letters to the Department for Work and Pensions in July and August about my constituent’s dissatisfactory experience with and concerns about the Child Maintenance Service and received no response. I wrote to the Minister for Water and Flooding, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), on half of a parish council in my constituency that wished to invite the Minister to a meeting on 22 October. Now, I understand the pressures on a Minister’s diary, but I do not understand how we have reached 27 November and the Minister has not yet been courteous enough to respond. These instances are not anomalies; taking an inordinate amount of time to respond to Members has become the Government norm.
Most disappointing, however, is the fact that the responses received, despite taking so long, are too often completely unrelated to the matters raised and questions asked. On 11 June I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the statutory scheme for rebate pricing for drug manufacturers to highlight serious concerns raised with me about potential impacts on a local business. I asked for clarity on three matters in three perfectly clear questions, and 156 days later I received a response from a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, although none of the questions I asked were answered or addressed in any proper way. Not only did I wait 156 days to receive a response; I waited 156 days to receive a response that did not answer my questions. These examples clearly demonstrate that the service this Government and Ministers are providing to MPs, and therefore to our constituents, is simply not good enough. Correspondence is not being lost in the system; it is wilfully neglected.
When responses do arrive, they should be accurate. When I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care at oral questions why he had not delivered on his commitment to deliver the RSV vaccine to the over-80s this winter, he told me, “We have”, when, in fact, the Government had not, with the actual expansion not happening for winter 2025. I then raised a point of order, followed by a named day question, to which a Minister responded by redefining “delivered” to mean accepting the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—stretching credulity—all while admitting:
“The RSV programme could not be expanded ahead of this winter.”
This linguistic gymnastics is Kafkaesque.
What other options are available to us? I understand the pressures that Departments face, but there are many Ministers to answer these questions, not to mention an army of civil servants. I again refer to the ministerial code, which clearly states:
“Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses to written parliamentary questions, ministerial correspondence and select committee reports.”
With that in mind, earlier this month I ended up submitting 16 written parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care just to ask when he planned to respond to 16 of my named day questions, which should have been answered in three sitting days but were all overdue—in some cases by up to two weeks. In what can only be described as a farcical situation, I submitted a written question asking when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care planned to respond to a written question, which itself asked when the Secretary of State planned to respond to another written question, which was then finally responded to. It is with regret that I must inform hon. Members that I have 11 further written parliamentary questions that remain unanswered and overdue. The oldest was due for an answer by 14 October, which I have still not received.
I lament that the Nolan principles of openness and accountability have sunk to such depths under this Government that I am required to submit so many follow-up questions, but it was not always like this. Some 92% of ordinary written questions and 88% of named day questions were replied to on time in the 2023-24 Session under the Conservatives. Another lever open to us is the urgent question, yet that is just another question to which the Government do not respond with answers.
The most recent and most glaring example of the Government failing to uphold their obligations to be transparent and accountable to Parliament and the public is the appointment of David Kogan as chair of the Independent Football Regulator. As the ministerial code makes clear, Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict arises between their public duties and private interests. As the Commissioner for Public Appointments has made clear, the Culture Secretary breached the appointments code by not declaring her conflict of interest before signing off on Kogan as the Government’s preferred candidate, having received undeclared donations from Kogan for her leadership campaign in 2020.
Despite that, the Prime Minister still felt it was appropriate to also sign off on Kogan’s appointment and to clear the Culture Secretary of any wrongdoing. It is clear that the Prime Minister was in no position to do so, having also received donations from Kogan for his leadership campaign—the very same conflict of interest as the Culture Secretary—and supposedly having recused himself from any involvement in the appointment process.
When somebody is given a part-time job for £130,000 a year, and that person is giving money to the person appointing him, it is clearly in the public interest to know how much money that person has given the person appointing him—the Prime Minister or other Ministers. Despite there being an urgent question in the House on this, the Prime Minister has still not declared how much money Mr Kogan or his businesses gave. The Prime Minister says that rule makers cannot be rule breakers, so why are Ministers refusing to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction? Surely the public have a right to know.
How can we get around the Government’s obfuscation? It is shameful that in order to get answers to our questions, we must resort to submitting numerous freedom of information requests to public bodies to get the details on the issues we are concerned about because written questions have not been answered.
I will give an example. After the strategic defence review in 2025, I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask which industry bodies, defence industry companies, media organisations and other non-government bodies or people were given access to the review ahead of its publication, and at what times. Because they did not answer the question, I submitted an FOI request. I did not receive a timely response to that. I therefore had to go back to where I started and submitted a written question on 1 September, asking when the Department planned to respond to the FOI request. I finally received a grossly belated response on 16 September—yet it was dated 9 September—from the Secretary of State. That reply was incomplete and I have had to submit another FOI request to get the rest of the information.
Is this not the kind of wasteful and inefficient use of time in Government Departments and the civil service that our constituents want rooting out? Why should Members need to submit an FOI request to get an answer to their written question and then submit a written question about that very FOI request in order to get the answer that the Department clearly had all along? I am sure that Ministers are very busy, so how is that a good use of their time, or indeed Members’ time? How does it reassure Members that the principles declared as important within the ministerial code are being taken seriously? It clearly does not.
Ministers have developed a habit of announcing policy to the media instead of to this House in order to avoid scrutiny. I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, your many attempts, and those of Mr Speaker and other Deputy Speakers, to stop this. I asked a named day question on 11 November about the maternity and neonatal taskforce, which the Secretary of State promised an update on in June. I asked who is on the taskforce and how many times it has met. I have still not received an answer, but fortunately I read the answer in the New Statesman on the weekend, because the relevant Minister in the Lords made an announcement at a public event with the answer, which is that the taskforce has not met but will do in January, and that the people on it have not been decided yet. Why are the Government announcing the answers to questions in public and to the media but not in the House?
We all have a duty in this House to answer questions and address the issues that face our constituents. These are not isolated examples; these are my experiences as one MP among 650 in this House, and I know that this is happening to many colleagues. I can only image the scale of evasion of accountability across the House. On the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister promised to
“restore service and respect to politics”.
Yet when Ministers are not firefighting reports of tax avoidance or criminal convictions, they are tap dancing around parliamentary questions and feeding policy announcements out to favoured journalists, instead of announcing them to this House and the public first.
Let me be clear: accountability is not a courtesy, and it is not optional. When Members ask questions and submit letters, we are doing so on behalf of our constituents. Ministers may regard swerving, stonewalling and spin as shrewd tactics, but they are not. It is an affront to this House and to the British people we represent. It is high time that this Government lived up to their own lofty rhetoric and started giving us answers. The public deserve a lot better.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. I know that she has raised these matters before a number of times in the House—
Chris Ward
I am listening. I am pleased that she has secured this debate. I could see her frustration throughout. I will come to her specific points shortly, but by way of introduction I will set out the Government’s position.
As the hon. Lady said, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government are committed to restoring trust, accountability and transparency in politics, and to ensuring that those of us who have the enormous privilege of serving in public office are held to the highest standards. As the Prime Minister himself wrote in his foreword to the updated and strengthened ministerial code,
“Restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era. The British people have lost faith in its ability to change their lives for the better.”
It is worth remembering briefly why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to write those words and why trust in politics is at such a critical moment, as the hon. Lady said. Frankly, the events of the last Parliament cast a long shadow over this issue—particularly partygate, which resulted in a Prime Minister being fined for breaching laws that he introduced, and being found to have deliberately misled the House at this Dispatch Box. That is unprecedented, and it has proved deeply corrosive of public trust.
Those events were compounded by the former Prime Minister’s complete disregard for the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards. Two independent ministerial advisers resigned because they lost faith in his upholding even basic standards. In contrast, I do not accept the hon. Lady’s assertion about how this Government are approaching the matter. This Prime Minister is determined to repair the breach in public trust and to rebuild it, and to ensure that government is once again in the service of working people.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the Minister is trying to say with his whataboutery, and his “Somebody else might have done it first,” but the point is that his Government are in government, and they are not delivering on their promises. The ministerial code already requires Ministers to be open and transparent, and to answer the questions, and they are not doing that. A tightened-up ministerial code will not be worth the paper it is written, given that the current one is not being adhered to.
Chris Ward
I will come to that, because enforcement of the code is one of the key points that I want to get to, along with how the Prime Minister is trying to address standards, and the problems that we experienced in the last Parliament. That is why he issued the updated, strengthened code, which includes the seven principles of public life—the Nolan principles that the hon. Lady referred to, and which this House debated just a few weeks ago. Those principles are front and centre of the new code, and make it clear that public service is a privilege that comes with responsibility.
Among the Nolan principles, first articulated some 30 years ago and highly relevant to today’s debate, is openness:
“Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”
There is also accountability. Holders of public office should be accountable for their decisions, including in this place. Another of the principles is honesty:
“Holders of public office should be truthful.”
I know the Prime Minister well. I know that he cares deeply about those principles. It is why he has spent his life in public service, and he is determined that this Government will uphold them.
The ministerial code includes a strengthened role for the independent adviser on ministerial standards. That role is no longer sidelined; it is now central to assuring accountability. Crucially, the independent adviser can now initiate his own investigations without the Prime Minister’s permission, which is an important step forward. I am also proud that this Government introduced the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, or the Hillsborough law, which will establish a duty of candour across public bodies and help ensure accountability across all authorities.
This Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment to establish an ethics and integrity commission, which will help drive up progress on standards. The ministerial code also includes strengthened principles on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality by Government Ministers, an issue that the hon. Lady has raised in this House previously. The Cabinet Office has also published a revised and strengthened code on public appointments, which will make that process faster and more transparent.
Dr Johnson
Does the Minister understand that £130,000 for a part-time job is a damn sight more than most of my constituents—in fact, almost all of my constituents—are getting, and that if the Prime Minister has appointed somebody or signed off on someone’s appointment, having received money from the person he is appointing, the public will want to know how much that person and their businesses may have given him?
Chris Ward
I was going to come to that. The hon. Lady has raised that point before, including on Monday.
Chris Ward
I am going to, if she lets me. This is a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport predominantly. The Culture Secretary made a statement to this House on the matter. All donations from Mr Kogan were made in line with the rules, and we are perfectly transparent on that. The Prime Minister asked the independent adviser to look at the matter, and at the Prime Minister’s role in it. Again, I contrast that with the behaviour of the last Government. The adviser was satisfied with the Prime Minister’s response, and said that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s
“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that…necessary steps”
were taken to improve the process underlying standards in public life. Again, that is a contrast.
I also point out that the Prime Minister stands at this Dispatch Box every week at Prime Minister’s questions. Hon. Members have had ample opportunity to ask that question, and they have chosen not to do so. There was no moving away from this; the process has been transparent. Everything was published in line with the rules, and there is ample opportunity to question both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary about this. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s point. Returning to other actions—
Chris Ward
I will make a little progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
The Government have taken action to improve openness and transparency, and we recognise the importance of accountability, particularly in this place. Ministers take their obligations seriously and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the independent adviser are committed to upholding both the spirit and letter of the code. That is why, during the Government’s first year in office, there were 190 oral statements across 168 sitting days—more than one per day. That is more than in the whole of the previous parliamentary Session. The Prime Minister has made nine statements to this House, including one earlier this week, and the Foreign Office has made 30 statements. As of this Monday, I am told that there have been 228 oral statements this Session—you will have been there for many of them, Madam Deputy Speaker—and over 1,000 written statements. I merely point that out to show that the Government do come to this House and make statements.
On parliamentary questions and letters, which the hon. Lady spoke about at length, I agree that it is important that Members get timely and helpful responses. Having been a Back-Bench MP asking these questions, I know how frustrating it is not to get timely and helpful responses. Clearly, she has raised some serious points about air ambulances and other issues. If it is okay with her, I will take those up with the relevant Departments and see what I can do to raise those points.
I gently point out that the number of parliamentary questions being submitted is at a record high. This summer, roughly three times as many parliamentary questions as usual were submitted, and one Member who I will not name has submitted over 1,000 questions. I am not saying that that is a reason for Ministers not to reply; they are replying. Civil servants and Ministers work hard, but there is a lot to get through, and we are working hard to on that.
Dr Johnson
Take the Department that has received the most questions this parliamentary Session, the Department of Health and Social Care. It has received 15,000 questions since 4 July 2024, which is 29 questions per day. It has five Ministers and a whole army of civil servants to answer those questions.
Chris Ward
That is true; the Department of Health and Social Care is the Department with the largest number of PQs submitted. It is taking action to improve its PQ performance, but it receives a huge number; PQs are at record numbers. I am just saying that there is not wilful avoidance; a lot of this is about the volume, and trying to get through the questions.
I will try to make some progress. The Government are also engaging in the ongoing parliamentary inquiry, requested by Mr Speaker, on ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government are determined to ensure that when we have public inquiries, they lead to meaningful change, accountability and justice. For example, we are carefully considering the latest report from the covid-19 inquiry, and will respond fully in due course. To further drive accountability and implementation, the Government have launched a publicly accessible list on gov.uk of all recommendations made by inquiries, and the progress that the Government are making in response.
As I said, the Government do take transparency and accountability extremely seriously. We are, as with so many other things—from the economy to prisons and the immigration system—having to rebuild faith and trust in our politics from the very low base that we inherited. The hon. Lady made some good points about responses to PQs and letters, on which I will follow up, but the Government are making progress and are committed to going further. I welcome the debate, and the opportunity to discuss this tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (First sitting)
The Chair
We are sitting in public and our proceedings are being broadcast, although I have asked specifically that the public not be admitted to the Public Gallery at this stage, simply so that they do not file in and then have to file out again for the private session. Will Members please switch off electronic devices? I remind everyone that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—if you want to have that, you have to go outside the room. Date Time Witness Thursday 27 November Until no later than 12.00 pm Hillsborough Law Now Thursday 27 November Until no later than 12.30 pm The Law Commission; Crown Prosecution Service Thursday 27 November Until no later than 1.00 pm Margaret Aspinall; Charlotte Hennessy; Steve Kelly; Sue Roberts Thursday 27 November Until no later than 2.25 pm Hilda Hammond; Jenni Hicks Thursday 27 November Until no later than 2.45 pm Lord Evans of Weardale Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.10 pm INQUEST; Professor Julia Waters Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.30 pm Grenfell United Thursday 27 November Until no later than 3.50 pm National Police Chiefs’ Council Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.15 pm The Law Society; LAPG, the Legal Aid Practitioners Group Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.35 pm The Chief Coroner of England and Wales Thursday 27 November Until no later than 4.55 pm The Independent Public Advocate Thursday 27 November Until no later than 5.30 pm Care Quality Commission; NHS Resolution; NHS England Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.05 pm Flora Page KC; Whistleblowers UK; Second Sight; Hacked Off Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.30 pm Mayor of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority; Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority Thursday 27 November Until no later than 6.50 pm Daniel De Simone
We will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available to us, which is very limited, I would like to take those motions formally, without debate. I hope that that will be in order for all members of the Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 27
November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 November;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 December;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 December;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 December;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 December;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 and 11; Schedule 3; Clauses 12 to 15; Schedule 4; Clauses 16 and 17; Schedule 5; Clause 18; Schedule 6; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 11 December.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Alex Davies-Jones)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wish to declare that I am a director and vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, which is a non-profit organisation.
The Chair
That is now a matter of record. If any other Member has interests to declare, will they please do so before they start questioning?
Examination of Witness
Pete Weatherby gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hillsborough Law Now. I am afraid that we have to stick to very tight timings because of the number of witnesses we are seeking to call in these sessions. For this witness, we have until 12 o’clock only. Thank you for joining us, Mr Weatherby. For the benefit of the record, will you please indicate who you are?
Pete Weatherby: I am Pete Weatherby, a director of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, which takes forward the Hillsborough legacy to change culture and create legal reform.
The Chair
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes. Hillsborough Law Now has taken forward the legacy project. I led one of the teams at the Hillsborough inquest, representing many of the families, and I have led legal teams in the public inquiries into many other disaster and scandal cases. What happened to the Hillsborough families is well known, so I will not go into it. There was not just the disaster and the tragedy itself but, of course, the scandal of the cover-up afterwards. The Hillsborough families wanted to stop that happening to anybody else, and that is where the project came from.
I led the team that drafted the original Hillsborough law in 2017. It aimed to do three things: to establish a general duty of candour, to establish a duty to assist official investigations, and to rebalance legal representation for victims. The Government asked us to assist them with taking the project forward, given their manifesto commitment. Over the last year, we have met a number of Ministers and many officials to try to get the legislation as good as it can be.
By 16 September, we advised the families and the campaigns that the Government Bill that was introduced for First Reading substantially met the three pillars of the Hillsborough law. We, the Government and the families agreed that we would endorse it, but on the basis that there was further work to be done. We have provided a briefing to the Committee in which we have outlined the further measures that we would like to see, and we ask you to give them due consideration.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Q
Pete Weatherby: Primarily, our concerns are around command responsibility and the extent to which the Bill covers, or does not cover, the intelligence services, and we have concerns about the clause 11 offence going too far in its requirements.
Dr Mullan
Q
Pete Weatherby: On command responsibility, the Bill, and the original Bill, created both individual and corporate duties, and quite rightly so. The problem with the corporate duties is that the offences require a very high threshold. They require either intent or subjective recklessness, which means that the person has to foresee the risk but nevertheless decide to take it. It is not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult, to apply that to an inanimate object like a corporate body.
In the original Bill, we imposed some corporate duties but put the responsibility for enforcing them on the heads of the public body involved; this has not quite been followed through in this Bill. We would like to see a simple amendment to clauses 5 and 11, as we set out in the briefing, to put that legal responsibility on the chief officer or the chief executive of the public body. Without that, a lot of the duties in the Bill are reduced to something that looks good but is rather ineffective. We have said all the way through that our watchwords are “practical” and “effective”. If law is not practical and effective, don’t bother. That is the first thing.
On the intelligence services, some of the many campaigns behind a Hillsborough law include the Manchester Arena families. There was a major failure of the intelligence services and the way they dealt with the aftermath of the bombing. This is all in the public domain: they had intelligence that related to the bomber and the bomber’s activities, and they did not act on it. The chair of the public inquiry, having heard closed evidence, came to the conclusion that they should have acted on it. Although he could not say whether it would have made a difference, it might have made a difference. Obviously, that is very important. The problem beyond that was that MI5 then put an incorrect narrative—a false narrative—to the inquiry itself. The judge, the chair of the inquiry, found that the corporate case that it had put was incorrect.
There are other examples. Obviously, we have very limited time. I know you are going to hear from Daniel De Simone, the BBC reporter, this afternoon. His case is another one where the security services have fallen short in terms of candour. These are not the only examples. We are very keen to apply the duty of candour and all of the duties here as much as possible to the security services. The objections to that are that it might interfere with national security. I represented seven of the Manchester Arena families, and I can say very clearly that there is no intention to interfere with national security whatsoever—quite the opposite.
The Bill drafted by us, and this Bill, does not affect national security, positively or negatively. It just does not affect it. What it does affect is that when the intelligence services have to report to an inquiry or the Intelligence and Security Committee or whatever, they have to tell the truth, whether in open or closed session. That is the key element of it. We think that has been missed.
The Government invited me to have a meeting with the intelligence services last night, and I did. I know that this Committee has been briefed as well. I think it was quite clear that the intelligence services have missed that point. We have put forward a very simple amendment that we think takes complete account of those concerns about national security. We ask you to look at that and to adopt that amendment.
The Chair
The Minister has graciously indicated that she wants Members to have the chance to ask questions. Minister, feel free to come back if you choose to. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt
Q
Pete Weatherby: No. The reason I have majored on command responsibilities is because that is a weakness in the Bill, but the Bill applies across the piece and to all public servants at all times, with the general duty as well as the duty of candour and assistance, which is the ancillary duty, if you like. So that is really important.
We are very keen to underline that this is an empowering Bill. In many of the cases—Hillsborough is a particularly good example—ordinary, decent police officers tried to tell the truth and were not allowed to tell the truth. This is a Bill that imposes a duty of candour across the piece. Everybody knows about it. Senior officers required junior officers to tell lies—this is the evidence they themselves gave on oath. That has to be stopped, and this Bill does that. We have tried to build in it those empowerment things, including whistleblowing—enhanced whistleblowing provisions and the like.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I do not think there is a clear yes or no answer to that, but it is not strong enough. The purpose of what we want to do with command responsibility is to stop the chief constable thinking that it is okay to put the false narrative forward. If there is a legal responsibility on the chief constable to discharge the corporate duty, he is not going to do that. I think that if the amendment is made, the answer is yes; if the Bill is left as it is, it is more complicated. If it is left, I think it will make a big difference, but it will not stop as many of the problems.
There are other examples. Going back to Manchester Arena, the chief constable of Manchester put forward false evidence to the Kerslake inquiry. Those are not my words; he subsequently described it as “a very grave error”. He did that because he did not have command responsibility, and he thought he could get away with it. The command responsibility needs to be made clear, and the provision in clause 2(5) does not go far enough—it is ineffective.
Maria Eagle
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes, absolutely.
Maria Eagle
They want to know what happened, and they want accountability where there have been errors or grave mistakes. In the Hillsborough case, of course, the match commander lied and then tried to cover up—unsuccessfully, in the end—what had really happened by smearing Liverpool fans and those who had died. It took many years—well, until the Hillsborough independent panel convinced the country of the truth—
Pete Weatherby: In 2012.
Maria Eagle
In 2012. It took a long time for that to be fully put to bed.
Pete Weatherby: Without a blink, in all the cases that I have done, you start with the tragedy itself, and of course everybody wants to know exactly what did or did not happen, but the cover-up does so much damage. People are absolutely outraged. Unfortunately, you cannot undo the bomb or the crush—whatever has caused it— but you then have it compounded by a cover-up, which does so much damage.
Maria Eagle
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think there is a huge role, and there is a discretion within the Government Bill to extend the duty of candour to panels. We would like that to be stronger—that would be great. Of course, there is no one size fits all. As somebody who has been involved in many public inquiries, I have a major criticism of the length of them. The duty of candour will scythe down the length of public inquiries, if it is used properly. Yes, there is an extension of legal aid in the Bill, but it will be dwarfed by the amount of money that will be saved if the duty of candour is used appropriately and properly.
On your point, absolutely, there is a huge role. I have been on panels myself, and it definitely is not a one size fits all. Internationally, there is learning about this. The best example is probably New Zealand, where there is a smorgasbord of different processes.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Q
Pete Weatherby: Yes, I think that would be a sensible additional measure. I think the measure that we put forward in the briefing would, in a practical and effective way, do what we are setting out to achieve, but the more oversight that can be provided, the better. The ISC is well placed to do that and therefore it would be an additional safeguard. I cannot speak for everybody on that, because I have not seen an amendment in time, but it sounds like a very sensible suggestion.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think that if the amendments that we are putting forward were made, it would be almost impossible for a Hillsborough-style cover-up to follow.
Ian Byrne
With the strengthening amendments.
Pete Weatherby: Yes. There is no silver bullet or absolute answer, because if people choose to lie, they choose to lie. What we are doing here is putting in so many deterrents—we are not interested in locking people up; we are interested in deterring them in the first place. The answer to the second question, building on the answer I gave Maria Eagle, is that the Bill goes a long way to solving the problem, but the amendments would make it much better.
On the question of international partners, let me deal with it this way. If the head of the French secret service were sitting in Paris, reading the BBC reports of the Daniel De Simone case, in which it is clear from the High Court that the security services misled two different constitutions of the High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, or reading the account of what happened with the misleading of the Manchester Arena inquiry, would they think, “Well, it’s good that the British secret services are doing that,” or would they think, “Next time we have a dealing with them, can we believe what they say?” The more candid that we can make this, the better the relationship with international partners. There is no threat here; that is a completely false road to go down.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Q
Pete Weatherby: I think there should be a mixture. There have to be central tenets to it; otherwise, we will fall into the problem where a local authority or police force will have its lawyers lawyering up a code that does not do what it should do. I think there should be a mixture on that front.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: We have set the standard very high indeed, because we are not interested in criminalising people and we are certainly not interested in scaring people. One example thrown at us during the discussions with the Government was that we might be criminalising junior civil servants who turn up late for work—absolutely not. Intent and subjective recklessness are high hurdles, but they are individual hurdles. A corporate body cannot easily act recklessly. It is not a legal impossibility; you do have health and safety or companies law offences, where there are corporate offences and you prove the mens rea—mental state—through the directing minds, but that is an incredibly difficult complication, and it does not really work with the offences that we are looking at here.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Pete Weatherby: The Bill creates some individual duties, so you can prove them against the individual, but on the corporate duty, the simple way of dealing with it is the one that we put forward. It is really simple: it is a couple of lines, as you can see from the amendments we have put forward. You make the head of the organisation responsible for the discharge of the corporate duty. There is no problem with that.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Q
Pete Weatherby: We have had very detailed discussions with the Government about this over the last year, and clause 6 was the culmination of those. The clause baldly states that the provisions apply to the intelligence services, but with a caveat. That caveat in clause 6 is fine. The Government came up with a slight issue, which was that intelligence officers might inadvertently, without realising it, notify things that affect national security. The caveat in clause 6 deals with that, and that is fine. What it does not deal with is the clause 2(4) duty to provide the evidence subject to the notification. I am sorry if this is a bit legalistic, but there is a clear difference there.
What would happen is that the intelligence service would notify the inquiry or investigation of the fact that it had relevant information or evidence to give, but then the individuals within the intelligence service would be required to provide the material. Because the intelligence service is sighted on that, the material from the individual intelligence officers goes through the intelligence services before it goes to the investigation, so the national security aspect is dealt with—no problem.
We thought that was what the Government had agreed to, but when we look at a rather obscure part of schedule 1, clause 2(4) still applies, except that you cannot make it apply, because it stops the issuing of a compliance notice, which is what kick-starts the application of clause 2(4). So that device disapplies it, and that is the problem. If you just changed the schedule 1 thing, clause 6 would be fine. That is what we thought we had agreed to, to deal with the legitimate national security aspect.
It is important that the individual responsibilities apply to intelligence officers as well, subject to the national security checks. We do not think that is a problem at all. We challenged the intelligence services to tell us how it is a problem, and they have not. If they do not apply, you end up in the Manchester Arena situation, where the evidence was corporate and was wrong. It was not until the chair, who was extremely good, called the intelligence officers themselves—on oath, in closed proceedings—that the false narrative that had been put forward corporately was unpicked.
I am sorry if that is a bit complicated, but that is the problem. It is easily solved, and there would be no effect on national security. It would make our intelligence services better, in the same way as the rest of the Bill makes local authorities, police forces and everybody else better.
The Chair
I have to draw this session to a conclusion. Mr Weatherby, thank you very much for you evidence; the Committee is indebted to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Penney Lewis and Tom Guest gave evidence.
The Chair
We shall now take oral evidence from the Law Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service. Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. Again, we have to stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed, so we have for this session, I am afraid, only until 12.30 pm. I would be grateful if the witnesses could confine their answers to some brevity, in order to obtain as much information through Members as possible. First, could you identify yourselves for the record?
Tom Guest: I am Tom Guest from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Professor Lewis: I am Professor Penney Lewis, the law commissioner for criminal law at the Law Commission of England and Wales.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Does either of you wish to make a brief opening statement? I do mean brief.
Tom Guest: No, thank you.
Professor Lewis: No, thank you.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes, there are some differences, but the Bill substantially implements the Law Commission’s recommendations on misconduct in public office. All of the core structural reforms have been adopted, in clauses 12 and 13. There are a few material differences in detail; I will perhaps run through them as a list, without expanding on them, and then if there are any you wish to pick up, you can.
There are some objective fault elements in both offences where the commission had recommended subjective awareness: in the seriously improper acts offence, the commission recommended that the defendant had to realise that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper, whereas the Bill requires that the defendant knows or ought to know that. There is a similar shift in the breach of duty offence.
There is some divergence in relation to the defence to what we recommended as the corruption offence—the seriously improper acts offence. We recommended a public interest defence; the Bill has a reasonable excuse defence. We recommended that the persuasive or legal burden be on the defendant, whereas in the Bill it is only an evidential burden to raise the defence that is on the defendant.
There is an extra seriousness threshold in the breach of duty offence, which we explicitly rejected; we did not think it was needed. That is the requirement that
“the act…falls far below what could reasonably be expected”.
It is a sort of gross negligence threshold.
I think the other points are fairly minor. One is about the repeal of section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and the other is some differences in relation to what counts as holding public office. Having said that, our recommendations on that were that the Government consider certain kinds of public office for inclusion in the list, and the Government have considered all of those kinds of public office. We had anticipated that further work would be needed to refine the list, and that work has been done.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor Lewis. Does Mr Guest wish to come in on the back of any of that?
Tom Guest: No, thank you.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: What it does is expand the scope of the offence. In circumstances where the defendant was not aware—did not realise—that a reasonable person would regard the act as seriously improper in relation to the seriously improper acts offence, or was not aware of the duty in the context of the breach of duty offence, under our recommendations, the defendant would not be liable. Under the provisions in the Bill, however, if the jury were of the view that the defendant ought to have realised the relevant fact, that would suffice. It is an expansion of liability.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: That is less clear. The one thing I could say quite confidently is that there is a significantly lower burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant just has to introduce some evidence to raise the possibility of a reasonable excuse, and the burden will then be on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse beyond reasonable doubt—so to the criminal standard. That difference in relation to the burden of proof is favourable to the defence.
On whether there is a material difference in relation to a public interest defence versus a reasonable excuse defence, I think reasonable excuse would probably encompass things that would fall within a public interest defence and might be broader, but without anything on the face of the Bill constraining what a reasonable excuse is, it is difficult to say. I suppose, eventually, there will be case law that will deal with the question of what does and does not constitute a reasonable excuse in these circumstances.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: No. In general, we were supportive of this project from the outset—not because we were having difficulties with the common law offence, but because it sets it out much more clearly to have it contained in an Act. It clears up certain areas such as, “Who is a public official?” and, “How should a jury assess seriousness?” We have not identified disadvantages with the misconduct provisions.
The Chair
The Minister has once again kindly waived her right to question, so I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats, please.
Tessa Munt
Q
Tom Guest: It is right to identify that the extension of liability is only to direct contractual relationships, so not necessarily further down the line. I would make two qualifications to that. First, we will look at the evidence and the precise contractual relationship—what the evidence of the contract is. Secondly, I think we are talking about clause 4(2) here, which would also cover a private contractor who had a health and safety responsibility in connection with the incident. Although it does not cover the contractual relationship further down the line, that is an alternative route to liability.
Tessa Munt
Q
Tom Guest: Let me explain how the DPP’s consent to prosecute works. In most criminal offences, a private prosecutor or the police can commence proceedings—so they get a summons or they charge someone, the suspect becomes a defendant and they go into the court system automatically.
Where the DPP’s consent is required, that means that the permission of the CPS is required to prosecute. We apply our standard tests to that: “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute?” and “Is a prosecution in the public interest?” They are the same tests that we apply to a prosecution. If we conclude that those tests are met, we take the prosecution forward ourselves. If we conclude that they are not met, the case does not go into the court system.
The purpose of the DPP’s consent is to make sure that unmeritorious or vexatious prosecutions cannot get taken forward. Certainly, in terms of the misconduct offences, sometimes there are private prosecutors who wish to take forward unmeritorious prosecutions, so it is a check and balance on that. If it is a meritorious prosecution, however, we will go ahead with the prosecution ourselves.
The Chair
It would help if Members could indicate which witnesses they wish to address their remarks to.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: That is one of the tests that we have tried to look at when we have been looking at the draft provisions. First of all, there is not a freestanding defence to the duty of candour—there is no reasonable excuse or anything like that—so the Bill is tightly drawn in that respect. There are also no viable defences elsewhere in criminal law that we can see, so the duty of candour is very tightly drawn to be complied with.
The one point that is important to draw attention to, in the interests of transparency and frankness, is clause 3(7), which makes it clear that
“The duty of candour…does not require a public authority…to breach any prohibition or restriction imposed by”
an Act of Parliament
“or a rule of law”.
When I say it is tightly drawn, it is not open ended. The public authority has to point to an actual Act of Parliament or a rule of law where the duty of candour does not require it to breach a prohibition or restriction. That is the one thing we wanted to draw to your attention, but otherwise there are no freestanding, wider reasons why public authorities cannot comply.
Seamus Logan
Q
Tom Guest: Just to make it clear, you are talking about the clause 11 offence, because the clause 12 misconduct offence also uses the words “seriously improper”. I will take the examples you have given to be referring to the offence of misleading the public.
The advantage of the Bill is that it clearly sets a standard for a jury to apply. Every jury is going to have to look at the specific evidence in the case. What did the suspects know? What were they withholding? What means did they take? What did they know at the time? Was it in the heat of the moment? The jury must consider all the evidence, and it is not possible to cater for all the different factual scenarios that might apply. The advantage, though, is that you have clearly set out in the Bill a standard set of considerations for a juror to apply, and they are clearly directed at setting a threshold between improper and seriously improper. Clause 11(3) is about as clear as you can get when you bear in mind that it has to apply to all kinds of potential factual scenarios; it is clearly set out there how to apply that assessment of seriously improper.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Professor Lewis: Yes. I would phrase it slightly differently: I would say that the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse, rather than thinking about truth or falsity. But, yes, once the defendant introduces evidence that raises the defence of reasonable excuse, they will have met their evidential burden, and the persuasive or legal burden will then rest on the prosecution.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Tom Guest: When I mention that risk, it is to guard against the risk of unmeritorious prosecutions. Before there is a prosecution, there has to be an investigation. Again, you can have private investigations or police investigations. We at the CPS do not see a prospect of unmeritorious police investigations, and we do not see a present risk, although we see some risk, of unmeritorious private investigations. The DPP’s consent comes in at the point of asking, “Is this going to go into the court system or not?” At that point, we as the CPS are assessing whichever investigation has happened against the standard tests of, “Is there sufficient evidence to prosecute the suspect?” and, “Is a prosecution required in the public interest?” Whoever the suspect is, we will assess that against those standards.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Q
Tom Guest: It is fair to say that it is quite widely drawn, and there can be good policy reasons for that. Clearly, it is important to uphold the freedom of speech and protect the interests of journalism—not having a chilling effect on journalism is important. We understand why it is drafted in that way, but it is drafted quite widely. It would appear to cover those examples. Again, I am giving that at a very broad level. In a real-life scenario, the police would have gathered much more evidence for the prosecution to consider, but it potentially would cover those situations.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: From a practical point of view, in prosecuting misconduct in public office we do not generally have a problem with that—although I will come on to situations in which we do—because you have already shown that a police officer is doing something very serious indeed. The chances of them establishing that they had a reasonable excuse for that are very slim indeed. For context, it is quite rare that that is successfully raised because the prosecution should already have shown that something pretty serious has happened.
To give an example, we did have cases where public officials were providing information in return for money. On one view, that was a form of corruption, but their defence was, “I have a reasonable excuse for that.” Let me just run through how that works. It could be raised in several formats—ideally, by them giving evidence, but there are other ways. They can try to introduce it in the course of the prosecution case. There is a judge filter—the judge will not allow any old reasonable excuse to be put to the jury—but if the judge is satisfied that it is right for it to go to the jury, ultimately it will be for the jury to assess. The juries did assess that in those examples where public officials were providing information in exchange for money.
The Chair
Q
Professor Lewis: Not really, but just as background information, it is not uncommon in criminal law for there to be a burden on the defendant to raise a defence, and for the burden to disprove that defence to lie with the prosecution. That is a common method of ensuring that not every defence has to be negatived by the prosecution while reflecting the presumption of innocence.
Maria Eagle
Q
Subsequently, there was a cover-up that involved police officers from South Yorkshire and West Midlands police altering statements to try to get across a narrative about what had happened that was different from the truth. None of the officers who engaged in any of that has ever been found guilty of any offence or held to account in any way. Do you believe that if the offences in the Bill had been on the statute book at the time, there would have been a proper chance to hold those officers to account?
Tom Guest: I begin by echoing what the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, said of his sorrow and regret about the outcome of those trials. He was also focused on whether there was an opportunity to put better and clearer law plainly and clearly on the statute book. We feel that that has happened in this Bill. I am afraid that, even if I had seen the evidence, I would not be prepared to comment on particular cases and particular situations. Do I think that the new provisions better and effectively reflect the law on misconduct in public office? Yes, I do. Are there any risks to the provisions? No, we have not identified any. That is perhaps as much as I can assist.
Ian Byrne
Q
Tom Guest: I partly covered this previously but, to draw that out, no, we have not identified any freestanding offence, either in the statute or in general, that is likely to apply. It is important to underline that clause 3(7) covers the fact that if there is another Act of Parliament or another rule of law that prohibits providing information, the duty of candour does not override that. That is the only exception to the duty of candour that we have identified to draw to your attention.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: The statutory limits introduced by the Bill seem to fit the culpability in the two offences. The breach of duty offence is clearly far more serious because it engages a duty to prevent death or serious injury. We see the statutory penalty as high and suitable, so far as it is for the CPS to say that. Similarly, the seriously improper acts offence perhaps does not have the same level of culpability but it still has a significant penalty. It is within the remit of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, so we have not identified any concerns about the proposed penalties.
Dr Mullan
Q
Tom Guest: I am not aware of them. There is always a question of overlap. If you have another offence, such as an offence of rape, then we would be charging rape, and we have the maximum sentence of life there.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: All I can say in relation to the misconduct in public office offences, the ones that the Law Commission recommended, is that we recommended the Government consider the inclusion of contractors. They have not been included separately in schedule 4 but, as Mr Guest said, I do not think I am in a position to comment on whether in particular cases, particular offences may have been committed, because one would need to see the evidence and one would need to be a prosecutor in order to take a view on that.
Dr Mullan
Q
Professor Lewis: If someone were in public office, which I think is not necessarily the case based on the clauses before us, it is possible that the seriously improper act offence could be considered. I think that is as far as I can possibly help.
Tom Guest: Turning to the duty of candour extension, which directly addresses this, I think our straight answer is that “direct contractual relationship” is in the Bill for a reason; of course we would look at the evidence and the precise contract, but it does appear limited to that. I agree with what Professor Lewis said: when you come to the misconduct in public office offences, schedule 4 is intended to reflect existing public offices, but every attention should be paid to it to decide whether it has become any wider or more narrow, and whether there is good reason for that. We are not expressing a view but, if we are going to replicate the existing common law, we need to make sure that schedule 4 does so effectively.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Q
Tom Guest: Even if I were possessed of the information about the Grenfell live investigation, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on that directly. However, having scrutinised the proposals on the duty of candour, we do not say lightly that it is tightly and clearly drawn. There is not an ambiguity in what is expected of public officials or public authorities in principle.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence, Professor Lewis and Mr Guest. The Committee is most grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Margaret Aspinall, Charlotte Hennessy, Steve Kelly and Sue Roberts gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. We are now going to take oral evidence from Margaret Aspinall, Steve Kelly, Sue Roberts and Charlotte Hennessy. May I ask you very briefly to introduce yourselves? We will the do the introductions first and then we will take, if you wish, a very brief opening statement from all or any one of you.
Sue Roberts: My name is Sue Roberts. I lost my older brother—well, he was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. I was only 23 at the time. I feel like I have lived my whole adult life under this dark cloud of Hillsborough. I lost my parents, particularly my dad, prematurely because of the torment that the parents went through because of Hillsborough. I am now trying to continue to right things for future generations.
Steve Kelly: My name is Steve Kelly. I lost my older brother, Michael, who was also unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. I am 72 years old now, and I have spent half my life trying to right that wrong. It is something that has not only tormented us; it has haunted us. We have given so much of ourselves—as Sue rightly said—so that in years to come, people will never go through this again. It has been cruel, and it will continue to be cruel until we get sanctions in place for those that break the law, cut corners and cover up. We will carry our fight on until that happens, and we hope you look favourably on us today.
Margaret Aspinall: My name is Margaret Aspinall. I lost my eldest son, James, who was just three weeks into being 18 and at his first away game at Hillsborough. He was unlawfully killed. I had four other children besides James; James was the eldest. They have lived their lives under the shadow of Hillsborough, watching their mother fighting, campaigning and trying to get justice for the 97. It is an absolute disgrace what has gone on over the years. We are now 36 years down; all that we want, and all that we are here for, is to have a Hillsborough law to change a system that was so corrupt and morally wrong against ordinary people—that is why we are here today. My children and grandchildren are living under the shadow of Hillsborough now. To me, that is an absolute disgrace, 36 years on.
Charlotte Hennessy: I am Charlotte Hennessy. I am the daughter of Jimmy Hennessy, who was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough when I was six. I am now 43 years old and a mum of four sons. I have spent my whole life quite literally trying to climb out of this hole—the cover-up of what happened at Hillsborough. I am here today to represent what happened to my dad.
Could I ask the Committee to speak a bit louder? Margaret, Sue and Steve struggle to hear.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Before I invite questions, can I say personally how very much I appreciate that you are here and have taken the trouble to be here today. The lines of questioning will be as sympathetic as, under these circumstances, it is possible to make them.
Dr Mullan
Q
I will just ask whether any of you want to talk about how things might have been different, and how the experience might have been different for you, had you known what had happened from the start and had truth from the outset.
Charlotte Hennessy: My experience is very different from Margaret’s, Sue’s and Steve’s, because I was so young. I did not know the magnitude of what had happened until the Hillsborough independent panel released its report. That was the only opportunity I had to access evidence statements and be able to piece a timeline together of what actually happened to my dad. That was when I really realised the magnitude of what had happened. I want to acknowledge the Hillsborough family members who are not here today—if it were not for them, and for the survivors who stood by their truth even when they were shut down by those who were supposed to protect them, and if they had not fought the fight, children like me would never have known the truth of what happened.
For me, it only got worse from there. It was like Hillsborough had just happened at that time, because that was when I realised that my dad’s original cause of death was completely untrue—even down to his pathology report being untrue. It was not how my dad died. I will not speak about the details here, but I will send them privately to the Committee. It has had a profound impact.
Had all that information been available, I do not think I would have had to spend my whole teenage and adult life fighting for the truth of what happened to my dad. It now impacts my own children, like Margaret said earlier. My husband is here in the room today. We have had to educate our children on the seriousness of those lies, on the impact of the cover-up, and on the fact that their granddad would have been buried in a lie if it were not for those good people.
The Chair
Could I just ask, because there are four of you, that you indicate when you wish to add to the first answer given? That will help me to help the Committee, as we have quite a lot of questions to get through.
Dr Mullan
Q
Margaret Aspinall: Yes. The family has had great financial loss. As I said earlier, I had four other young children. The youngest was only six—the same age as Charlotte—at the time, the next was seven, one was nine, and then a son who was fifteen going on sixteen. They had an absolutely terrible time. I had to change their schools because of things young children were saying. Innocent children were saying terrible things about how their brother died and how it was caused. Obviously, it was what they were listening to, so I had to change their schools. It was a very difficult thing. My husband was at the game as well, and he has never been to a game since. He just cannot face going to another football match. My children went through a terrible time, like Charlotte did.
At the same time, I realised something when Sue and I were working in the Hillsborough office a few years ago. A phone call came through, and Sue said to me, “Margaret, there’s somebody on the phone for you.” I picked the phone up, and it was my granddaughter, who was 10 at the time; she said, “I would like an appointment to see my nan, please.” I thought, “I’m doing to my grandchildren exactly what I’ve done to my own children.” I was working so hard, and not just myself, but others—though I can only speak for myself—to get to the truth of Hillsborough. The lies and the cover-up, as Charlotte said, were an absolute disgrace.
When it came to the funding, we had to pay for every court case we went to. I am even talking about even judicial reviews, scrutiny, inquests, all different things. We paid every step of the way, and they had lawyers paid for by the state—from our taxpayers’ money—while we had to go cap in hand, trying to fight for the truth that was there all along, and for justice. What families went through—I cannot forgive that.
My children grew up with Hillsborough and my grandchildren are growing up with Hillsborough now, 36 years on. They are still not seeing their nan because I am busy doing other things to try to get a Hillsborough law, alongside others—good people, unsung heroes, who are supporting this campaign. They have done so much to change a system that must be changed—not for us, because it is too late for us—but for the good of this nation. The law has got to be changed, in all its entirety.
Steve Kelly: On the point of finances, when Hillsborough happened, obviously your finances just did not come into it. I will speak personally—I was a taxi driver at the time, and taxi drivers never earn good money, do they? You are always struggling, but you get by. I remember that I had to go to Sheffield to find my brother, I came home, and the last burden that I wanted to give to my mother and my sister Joan was issues of finance.
When the disaster was coming to the fore and all the information was coming out, we were obviously making plans to bury our brother. There was only one thing you could do at that time: you would go and borrow the money. I went to the bank and borrowed the money. I never, ever went to my mam and told her how much it was. Again, she had just lost her son, and she did not know how. You just bore those problems and lived through them for years, on the financial side alone, with paying loans back and so on.
That is why we want this law in—we beg you to bring this law in—because the trauma alone of losing someone, and then the trauma again of all these years fighting back, is so difficult to bear. The financial burden was not even a second thought—I appreciate the question, but it was nothing to do with us really. We got through it. People should not have to get through things. People should be helped and supported. This law, hopefully, will do that.
The Chair
Once again, the Minister has indicated that she wants Members to have the opportunity to ask questions. I call Tessa Munt for the Liberal Democrats.
Tessa Munt
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We are very confident. We have literally given 10 years of our lives, fighting to be here in this place. We have to acknowledge that Keir Starmer is the only Prime Minister who has endorsed the Bill. I would like to remind everyone that our Prime Minister made me a promise. He made a pledge to the public. It is now your duty to ensure that you fulfil that promise as well. If we were not confident in the Bill, we would not be sitting here today.
Steve Kelly: Just touching on something that Seamus was talking about before, about changing cultures within authorities and so on, I would like to give you an example that has never left me. During the Hillsborough inquests, a man in his 40s or early 50s was giving evidence. He was an ex-PC—at the time of Hillsborough, he was probably a young PC. He was being questioned about the culture within the South Yorkshire police force at the time in 1989.
I will never forget that man saying, “When you used to go Snig Hill, and you’d be walking along the corridor, you’d hold your head down when you’d see the bosses. You daren’t look at them, because we were frightened of them.” How could we encourage young officers like that to become whistleblowers? You couldn’t. We need a culture change. I thought that was a great point that this is something this law might do for not only policemen, but any public servants—anyone deserves support if they are trying to right a wrong.
That young policeman must have taken that with him to those inquests. I remember looking at his face and thinking, “That’s the first time you’ve got that out.” The burden was on him all those years as well. It should not be like that. Hopefully, the Hillsborough law will support that.
Sue Roberts: You are right; the culture changes have to be led from the very top—from the CEOs of these companies. Either they have to want to make this change happen or they need to move on.
Anneliese Midgley
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We completely support what Pete said earlier and the amendments that he has suggested. We are in full agreement with all the information that has been included in the Bill. Going forward, we need to acknowledge that Hillsborough is our story, but there are many, many others. We also need to acknowledge that the Hillsborough Law Now campaign group is made up of so many other examples of miscarriages of justice. They will have submitted their own evidence to you, so I will not name them all today, but we need to ensure that there is change going forward. We cannot keep allowing the same situations to repeat.
Not to be disrespectful, but ultimately we also need to acknowledge that the current laws that are in place failed to secure prosecutions against those that were responsible. David Duckenfield told that one lie while he stood over people who were scrambling for their lives. He got away with that because the Crown Prosecution failed to secure a criminal case against him. He was offered sympathy while family members had to sit and watch. He was allowed to place files so that he did not have to look at the family members that were sat in the public gallery.
We could sit and talk about examples all day. Norman Bettison was in this building. He briefed people about what happened at Hillsborough. He was allowed to do that. He was then made chief constable of Merseyside and then he was knighted. He was complicit in the cover-up. We have to change it. It has to stop.
Margaret Aspinall: I have to thank Maria Eagle—if you don’t mind, Maria. I always remember, a good few years ago, Maria having the power—the guts—to stand up in Parliament and say that it was “black propaganda” with Bettison. She was absolutely spot on.
When I look back over the years and think about what Charlotte was saying earlier, Mr Duckenfield—I call him Mr Duckenfield out of respect to all of you; otherwise I would not—walked away scot-free. He went missing for a couple of hours and not one person knew where he was. He could not remember where he had been; he could not remember where he was. He must have been the bloody Invisible Man because, good God, there’s no way. I think the police were scared to say exactly where he was. They were all scared; they were all covering up for each other. To me, that is an absolute, utter, utter disgrace of a system in this country.
I know we can’t bring judges up, but there is a few of them should be brought up. When we were at the private prosecution, where a judge could turn round and tell Mr Duckenfield, “Don’t worry, Mr Duckenfield, you won’t get a custodial sentence,” we knew then we had no chance—no chance. He directed the jury twice, because they came in and asked a question. For him to turn round and say, “What message are you sending out to the emergency services if you come back with guilty?”, what does that tell all of you? It tells you we had no chance whatsoever. We were up against a system that was corrupt from the very top to the bottom.
I feel sometimes we are on trial yet again for what happened at Hillsborough, because we are sitting here like this. I feel I am trying to ask all of you to do the right thing. I have asked the Prime Minister. He made that promise; he made a phone call to me that he would do the right thing. As Charlotte said, we thank him for that. He has made that promise; he will have to fulfil that promise. He has also promised it would not be watered down. For Hillsborough families—and for the likes of Ian as well, who was at that game and who knows what we have all gone through and what the survivors went through—we are here to change a system that should have been changed decades ago. When you look at all the cover-ups that have gone on—I can name them all, but I won’t, because I am sure you all know—it is a disgrace that we are sitting here now, 36 years on, trying to change the system. I am asking all of you, please don’t let anybody else go through what we have gone through. Please, I ask you all: do the right thing.
The Chair
Q
Steve Kelly: You asked us what the Hillsborough campaign wants from this. The Hillsborough campaign finished; Denton, Foster and Metcalf were found not guilty. I remember being there that day. Again, it came back that the case had been quashed. They walked away, after some of the most horrific things you could do as a policeman or a solicitor. I can remember, although I was surrounded by the campaigners and survivors who have supported us all these years, the feeling of loneliness, thinking, “What now?” We had been all these years fighting; looking for truth, which we never got—we got some truth; looking for justice, which we never got—we got justification; and looking for accountability—someone mentioned it before—and we have never had accountability.
I went home that day—I live alone—and I sat at home that night and sobbed. Why? I had done nothing wrong. I was just a lad from Liverpool; I’d done nothing. But those three men walked away with not a stain on their reputation, with their full pensions, and probably with a smile on their face—I had actually seen the smiles on their faces as they left the courts. You shouldn’t let anyone do that, to anyone. It is cruel. As I say, there was that feeling of loneliness and defeat. We had done nothing wrong. Why did I feel defeated? Because I couldn’t go to my mother’s grave and say, “We got them.” It shouldn’t happen.
Charlotte Hennessy: Can I just—
The Chair
One moment; do you mind if I just take Sue Roberts? Then by all means come back.
Sue Roberts: For my parents, and I am sure all other parents, it was just a feeling of despair. I thought this judicial system was the best judicial system in the whole world. Little did I know how wrong I was. We need to make our system the best in the world, and the Hillsborough law is the first step in the right direction.
The Chair
I will ask you to come in again in a moment, Ms Hennessy. As Ian Byrne was at the match, it is probably appropriate that I call him next, and then by all means comment.
Ian Byrne
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: We fully endorse all the amendments that Peter has already submitted.
Ian Byrne
Q
Charlotte Hennessy: I think they are needed; they make the Bill stronger, and anything that makes the Bill stronger is imperative.
Steve Kelly: We touched on it before—sorry, I am not sure who it was—but there should be more sanctions on the press. Without the press reports, the Hillsborough story would not have been as disastrous for us and would have not taken so long to come to a conclusion.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
Q
You have expressed your confidence in the Bill, and we want to get it right. Given that you have had to spend four decades of your lives campaigning on this, which is an extraordinary and appalling amount of time to get to this point, if we get this passed and deliver on your confidence, what does that mean for you? Does it mean that you can say, “We have won. We get our lives back. We can do all the family things that this has taken up”? Or does it change your campaigning so that you can support others? You may have not thought about that point. I just want to make sure that we understand, if we get this done for you, and if we get it done right, what it actually means for you. I think it is important that we know.
Steve Kelly: You do think about it every day. We are confident—believe it or not—and we have a lot of hope.
Sue Roberts: We keep having this conversation.
Charlotte Hennessy: We do; it is something that we talk about often.
Sue Roberts: We cannot wait for there to be a Hillsborough law so that we can move on.
Charlotte Hennessy: We know that we are never going to be able to secure criminal prosecutions for what happened to our loved ones—that ship has sailed. The best thing that we can do now is just make sure that nobody ever goes through what we have been through. Yes, that is a conversation that the four of us have very often. Once the Bill is passed in its entirety, I think we will be done.
Margaret Aspinall: I always say that, with Hillsborough, it is not all negativity; there is positivity as well. The positivity is that we have changed things in the way that supporters are treated. They were treated appallingly in the ’70s and the ’80s—I think back to my own husband—but we have changed things in that way. People now have a choice of either standing or sitting, with about a 99% certainty that they will go home.
I think the most important positive thing that we can get out of Hillsborough is having a Hillsborough law for the people. It would be a wonderful legacy for the 97, and this is for them as well. That is most important thing: that they have left a legacy and changed a corrupt system that was so wrong. I think our job will be done then.
I was a relatively young woman when I lost my son. I am a very old lady now—I am not going to tell you all how old I am, by the way, but I have had a bus pass for quite a few years. For most of my life, I have not seen my children grow up, or my grandchildren growing up —one is engaged now. It is so wrong, and nobody should have to face that and to fight and campaign for truth, for justice—or for accountability; I do not think there was any such word as “justice”.
If we get this Hillsborough law passed—and get the King to rubber stamp it, or whatever happens—our job will be done. The good people behind us are unsung heroes who have helped us along this journey. There is a lot to thank them for as well, and hopefully to thank all of you for.
The Chair
There are a lot more questions that Members would like to ask all of you, and no doubt there are a lot more answers that you will wish to give, but we have run out of time—that was inevitable this morning. Thank you so much for coming. I appreciate that it has not been easy for any of you; we all understand that, but we are deeply grateful to you. Thank you so much.
Charlotte Hennessy: Thank you for the opportunity. As members of the Bill Committee, you have a huge opportunity to change that culture and make our legal system stronger and better. Please do not waste it, and please do not let the public down.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm this afternoon here in Committee Room 4A to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)
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
Business and Trade Committee
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Liam Byrne will speak on the publication of the 11th report of the Business and Trade Committee, “Toward a new doctrine for economic security”, HC835, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and then call Liam Byrne to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. Let me record my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate; to a brilliant team of Select Committee members—it is a privilege to serve alongside them—and to a first-class team who help to ensure that the Select Committee does its work so expertly. The report we present today sounds a note of agreement, but is also designed to sound a warning. The note of agreement is this: we agree that national security is economic security. But the note of warning is stark: we do not find that our economic security regime is fit for the future.
If we think about the risks we faced this summer, with the Jaguar Land Rover cyber-attack, which ended up costing a £1.5 billion state guarantee; the struggles that our Dutch allies went through with Nexperia; and the struggles that our American allies went through in the spat with China over rare earth technology exports, we can now see that the question of economic security is front and centre for businesses and policymakers, each and every day. The warning that we sound is that the risks are going to multiply significantly over the years to come.
The threat surface that most businesses now operate is much bigger than in the past. Artificial intelligence is going to transform cyber-aggression. We now have states and state-backed actors operating in this space. This is all at a time when our country is going to seek to entice around £100 billion extra in inward investment, much of it from abroad and much of it in our energy infrastructure. What Ciaran Martin calls the private ownership of public risk is about to expand exponentially. Yet, right now, we simply do not have the defences in place that we need.
The core argument of our report is that just as we need a whole-of-society approach to defence, so we now need a whole-of-society approach to our economic security, but we do not have the systems in place to deliver that today. That is why change is needed over the years to come. In order to help understand precisely the gaps, we worked together with experts at the Royal United Services Institute, gathered lots of evidence, took lots of witness testimony and heard from Ministers. What that basically revealed is that many of our allies, such as Japan, but also in a way the European Union, have legislative backing for many of the regimes that they have in place.
Our allies in Japan in particular, who have had to think about this for a lot longer than we have, have a very sophisticated set of defences and state machinery. Equally, we could find very durable institutions in the United States and real policy innovation in the European Union today. In this country, we have a number of strategies, which are growing in number, but frankly do not really add up to a comprehensive regime for economic security.
There have been welcome advances, not least the critical mineral strategy that was published this week, but the risk is that ad hoc papers become strategy by stapler, where we have policy papers published that are not durable for the long term. That is a problem, because only the public sector and the private sector working together can mobilise the kind of investment that is needed to transform the country’s resilience for the threats we will face in the future. We argue therefore that, just as we comprehensively overhauled the doctrine to tackle counter-terrorism after 7/7 with the publication of CONTEST, we now need a new doctrine of economic security in order to ensure that there is a whole-of-Government and whole-of-society approach, all pointing in a similar direction.
We conclude that it does not make a great deal of sense for policy to be guided by a hard definition of economic security, because things are going to change: this is a dynamic environment, and a hard definition might entail more risks than it solves. However, we believe that this doctrine should be shaped by a set of strategic principles in the years to come. Colleagues across the House will have many ideas about what should go into that. We conclude that our approach should be guided by six Ds: diagnose, develop, diversify, defend, deter and dovetail.
On diagnosis, we think there should be a long-term technology forecasting centre in Government that supplies not just Government but the private sector with, if not intelligence, then certainly insight, to shape their understanding of risk in the future. We need to build on the work of the National Cyber Security Centre to create a proper platform where public and private sectors can work together in new ways to understand the risks that the country confronts.
We need to specify the sovereign capabilities that we need to develop as a country. Two or three are defined in the strategic defence review, but that is about it, and the defence industrial policy promised some further definitions. We cannot understand what we are going to decouple from allies—or in some cases from enemies—unless we have a more sophisticated understanding of the sovereign capabilities that we need as a country. We then need to line up the national wealth fund and other resources behind this understanding. We also need to modernise the “Managing Public Money” framework so that Ministers, like the excellent Minister in his place today, are not hidebound and forced to issue ministerial directions every time a strategic investment is needed, as was the case with Jaguar Land Rover and the nationalisation of British Steel.
Our third D is diversify, which is well understood. We need to diversify supplies of critical minerals and diversify our critical supply chains, too. The targets for critical minerals published on Monday were important, but there was no investment plan to go with them. We cannot do this alone; we can only do it by acting with allies.
We then need to better defend our infrastructure, including our critical national infrastructure and our cyber-infrastructure, in both the public and private sectors. That is why we think that the mandatory reporting of ransomware attacks is a good idea, and why we think we should be radically expanding the work of Pool Re so there is a backstop to the cyber insurance market, which there currently is not. We need capital allowances to be modernised, so there are real incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in cyber-security. Critical SMEs should probably enjoy access to Government support too.
In the field of deterrence, we need to ensure that we can fast-track investment into our country from trusted sources. That is why a trusted investor scheme would make a lot of sense. We need to explore anti-coercion instruments in the way that the European Union has. We need to name and shame those involved in sanction breaches much more aggressively than we are today. Crucially, we need to make sure we have the right skills in both Companies House and the National Crime Agency. It is ridiculous that there is something like a £28,000 gap between the pay that someone in the National Crime Agency can get and the pay that someone in an equivalent police force can get. That is not the way to ensure that we have the right people on the frontline. We note with concern that Companies House has a 20% vacancy rate in its digital workforce. That is a real risk.
Finally, we need to dovetail what the Government are doing with what the private sector is doing. That is why we need new spaces in which they can work together. We also need to dovetail what we are doing with what our allies are doing: we call for an alliance of free-trading democracies to work together, like the work of the UK and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—the Minister has just returned from a CPTPP meeting. The work that we are pioneering in the South Korean trade deal is a good example of the kind of thing that we should be doing more generally. We need almost to be driving forward an economic security union with our closest neighbour, and of course our allies in the United States need to be drawn into this work too.
We need to make sure that the blueprint has a backbone. That is why we call for a cross-Government Minister and an office of economic security to bring everything together, the restoration of the sub-committee on economic security in the National Security Council, and parliamentary oversight through the reform of section 54 of the National Security and investment Act 2021. We think that much of that should be enshrined in a Bill.
We have done this before. After world war one, we comprehensively modernised the state to combat the world of economic warfare. That is a wise lesson and a wise experience to guide us in new times.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. In my short time in Parliament, perhaps the most terrifying thing I have heard so far is the evidence we took on the Business and Trade Committee that state actors are joining forces with criminal gangs to attack this country in the cyber-theatre. From his vast experience, has the right hon. Gentleman ever delivered a report quite so urgent and time-sensitive?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the question and for his sterling work on the Committee as our inquiry has been driven forward over the last seven or eight months. I have not. It was striking to compare the evidence we took with history lessons from the 1920s and 1930s. As a country, we have developed infrastructure to tackle these kinds of threats in the past. Indeed, the forces that we assembled in the 1920s and 1930s were so important that they became known as the fourth fighting service. It was certainly crucial in helping us to stand up the Ministry of Economic Warfare in world war two with the speed that we did. We are now in a world of chokepoints, coercion and weaponised interdependence, and today’s cyber-attacks will be nothing compared with those in future. Frankly, the country is simply not ready. We have to get our skates on.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his report. I will not mention his vast experience though, because he is still young to me. Redditch was deeply impacted by the JLR shutdown, with many of our supply chains affected. My right hon. Friend talks in the report about the need for an economic security Minister and about the specific measures needed to upgrade cyber-security across our critical sectors. What powers would my right hon. Friend envisage such a Minister having, and how do Government support businesses to get up to date to meet the challenges mentioned in the report?
Liam Byrne
We have a very good Minister in place, but in a way, the report is designed to ensure that that Minister is empowered in his work and across Government. But first we must understand, and help the Minister have the powers to understand, the full breadth of the UK supply chains and where the risks are. The Jaguar Land Rover case was striking because the supply chain information was kept on the computers that went down. When the computers went down, they had to generate, I think, almost paper lists of tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers to work out who needed cashflow and who could survive without direct help. We must ensure that we have a full picture of supply chains and where the critical dependencies are, as the Japanese have been doing for many years.
Making sure that there is a proper backstop to the cyber-insurance market is important. That is why the proposals for a much bigger and better-equipped Pool Re are so important. Pool Re, as many will know, was set up to backstop terrorism insurance during the height of the IRA attacks. It now needs modernising for new times. The tax regime that we have in place today simply does not incentivise small and medium-sized enterprises in the way that we could, to draw down on subscription-based cyber-security policies. Making sure that there are the right incentives, powers and insights available are just some of the tasks that we think an economic security Minister needs to be fully empowered to perform.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member on the report. As I am sure he knows, I responded to his request for comment. My question is about the security of financial services. He says that diversification is one of the solutions to the risk of cyber- attack. My worry is that, if we put all our eggs into the basket of an increasingly electronic-based financial services market where high street banks retreat behind electronic walls, that does not just result in vulnerable and digitally-excluded customers struggling to access financial services, but creates a big national risk. It is a problem for our communities where banks are retreating—in Cornwall, there will be only one Lloyds bank left next year—and for the security of the nation as well.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. This is just a reminder that the debate must end at 10 minutes to 2.
Liam Byrne
I was very grateful to receive the hon. Member’s email. He is absolutely right. The shutdown of branches all over our country is a really serious problem that creates real risks. One answer is to ensure that we lean in behind the Post Office plans to create banking hubs, not just in a couple of hundred high streets, which is the proposal of the main banks, but in thousands of locations across the country. The Post Office has in place an agreement with the banks until about 2030, but the future thereafter is not clear, so I hope that Ministers can take up this point in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we lean into the plans that the Post Office has developed to transform the availability of banking services on thousands of high streets up and down the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
I warmly commend the Committee on producing its report. I take no offence at the demand that there be a separate economic security Minister, even though I think the Culture, Media and Sport Committee demanded, when I was the Minister responsible for tourism, that there be a separate tourism Minister as well—there seems to be a growing theme. I am very glad that the Committee agrees with the Government on the need for mandatory reporting of cyber-attacks. It seems to me that until we have a full understanding of the pattern of the problem that there is in the nation, we will not really be able to seize the opportunity. What shape does my right hon. Friend think the legislation that he proposes might take?
Liam Byrne
This is a very good point. We want to ensure that there is an enshrinement of the principles of the Bill, so that the private sector has clarity, certainty and confidence in the durability of the economic security regime that we operate in this country. In the inquiry, we heard overwhelming evidence that businesses frankly do not know whom to ring when there is a problem. They did not know whether there were particular spaces where they could work together, certainly with agencies but also with economic security services more generally. Providing clarity, certainty and durability is the only way in which we will be able to mobilise the scale of long-term finance that we will need in order to upgrade the resilience of this country for new times.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his help and work on this issue. I want to ask his opinion on the efficacy of our arms export control regime. We had two sessions in which we were looking into the F-35 in Gaza, and essentially it seems like the UK has outsourced its arms export controls to the Americans for F-35 replacement parts. Also, we continue to sell a lot of weapons to the United Arab Emirates, and it has been widely reported in the international press that the UAE is arming the Rapid Support Forces, which is creating enormous numbers of atrocities in Sudan. Does the right hon. Member think that our arms export control criteria are up to scratch?
Liam Byrne
I think there is a real opportunity in the course of the next year to modernise the way we export arms, and we will need to do that because of the simple reality that the definition of an arm in new times is very different. Many of our allies talk to us, as members of the Committee, about the need to strengthen in particular intellectual property export controls in the future. In a world where ideas can be weapons if they are, for example, novel artificial intelligence programmes, we have to take a much broader approach to this in the future. It is not clear to us that the way we license weapons and control adherence to licence conditions is strong enough, so it is an area to which the Select Committee will need to return. Again, if we are upgrading our economic security defences, I do not think we can do that, in the world in which we live, without comprehensively upgrading our arms control systems too.
Backbench Business
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
Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging.
This is particularly relevant to pubs and breweries, but the EPR scheme extends wider than that sector. I thank Tata Steel, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, British Glass and the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association for their engagement.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, EPR for packaging is one of the key issues raised with me over the past year. The challenges presented by this policy were highlighted many times during the beer group’s inquiry earlier this year. The industry is affected by a wide range of policy requirements across almost all Government Departments. The cumulative impact of these policies and regulations is taking its toll—it is stunting growth, and growth is what our country needs. The Chancellor used the word nearly 50 times in yesterday’s Budget speech, so I know it is important to this Government. In securing this debate, I want to share some of the EPR issues that have been raised with us by the beer sector, and hopefully move them closer to resolution, to help businesses grow once more.
What is extended producer responsibility? It is a major new UK packaging obligation that applies to brand owners and importers of all packaging that could end up in household waste streams. Fees became payable on 1 April 2025. They are in the form of pounds-per-tonne rates for all the main packaging materials: cardboard, plastic, paper and glass. There are some exemptions for very small producers. These fees will raise £1.4 billion to pay local authorities for the collection, management, recycling and disposal of household packaging waste.
Nobody can disagree that the idea of EPR appears to be brilliant. First, the polluter pays, with the businesses that put the packaging on the market bearing the associated environmental and societal costs. Secondly, it is an incentive for companies to design products that are more durable, reusable and easier to recycle. Thirdly, it is meant to promote a circular economy in which packaging is kept in use for as long as possible, minimising waste going to landfill. That all sounds great, but unfortunately the reality for businesses, particularly independent pubs and breweries, is very different.
Laura James, from Gower brewery in my constituency, says that the introduction of EPR means the business has never had so much money going out the door. She fears that EPR requirements—on top of the increases to beer duty, the national minimum wage and national insurance contributions—could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back. Such independent breweries, which are the lifeblood of communities like mine in Gower, may be forced to close.
Laura talked me through the day-to-day impact of EPR on the business. Every six to eight weeks, it gets a delivery of empty glass bottles, and it uses around half a million every year. Since the EPR requirements came in this April, its supplier has added £5,000 to the delivery, which means the brewery now has to find around an extra £45,000 every year, just for the bottles.
The British Beer and Pub Association, which represents the industry, says that brewers and pubs are struggling, and that the EPR fees for glass packaging are far too high, costing brewers nationwide around £124 million a year. My first ask of the Government is that EPR fees for glass are reviewed. They currently work out at around 6p extra per bottle.
Gower brewery says that, in an ideal world, it would move away from glass to cans, but that requires investment, which is money it just does not have. Alternatively, it would create a bottle deposit scheme, but that also requires money. It would need to rent a warehouse to store the empties, buy numerous bottle-washing machines and pay additional staff to facilitate it all. Added to that, it could not guarantee the integrity of the second-hand bottles—that they would be 100% safe to drink from. That is why pubs and breweries say it is vital that glass fees are made fairer and more sustainable.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. The famous Griffin brewery is in my constituency, as is Fuller’s, with its substantial on- and off-trade. We all want to see recycling increase, but there is the issue of fees and whether it will involve the use of materials that are less recyclable than glass, which is an important manufacturing tool for the brewing industry.
Tonia Antoniazzi
My hon. Friend is right. I am quite jealous that he has all those wonderful breweries in his patch. The pub and brewing sector is fantastic, and I really enjoy working with it, but I know how hard it is finding things and how it is striving to get to net zero. It wants to be part of this conversation and part of the solution. I take my hat off to that excellent sector.
Secondly, the sector would welcome a quick resolution from Government on the double charging issue, which the British Beer and Pub Association says is costing pubs and breweries nationwide an additional £50 million a year. They pay the EPR charge passed on by suppliers as well as their existing commercial waste disposal fees for the same items, including beer and wine bottles or food containers that never leave their premises. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has agreed that double charging is unfair and against the intentions of the policy. It has suggested that the earliest it can be rectified is 2028, but that is three years from now.
This issue needs to be resolved as soon as possible or smaller breweries such as Gower brewery will go under. Double charging means that not only does Gower brewery pay more to suppliers for its bottles and packaging, it pays Swansea council for its commercial waste collection. A simple clarification from Government would help the industry: the beer sector would like DEFRA to amend its guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees. As currently drafted, the rules prevent producers from accounting for the accrual of EPR payments across a 12-month period, which means that businesses are having to absorb the hit in one go in April.
On a positive note, there is no doubt that the pub and brewing sector and wider hospitality share the Government’s ambitions for well-designed schemes to reduce packaging, increase recycling rates and build a functional circular economy. However, on a practical level, it is proving difficult. As well as the increased packaging fees, there are additional admin costs related to the time needed to fulfil EPR requirements. Laura from Gower brewery explained that every item of packaging has to be weighed and logged on a portal, from the bottle to the cardboard tray it is packed in and the plastic it is wrapped in. Each business it supplies has a separate portal, making it a lengthy task.
There is also future uncertainty for businesses, which is not good for jobs or growth. For example, Laura is concerned about how each supermarket will approach EPR in the coming months. What if, say, Tesco decides that it wants her brewery to abandon plastic wrapping in favour of a cardboard box? Gower brewery would then have to find space for lots of flat-packed boxes. That uncertainty is shared by the whole sector, particularly because of the delayed confirmation of the final level of fees required under EPR and the retrospective nature of charging. Those two issues have made it extremely difficult for businesses to plan and to understand the level of investment needed to meet the new obligations.
An urgent solution must be found to the double charging issue, which is unfairly placing additional costs on pubs. If a long-term solution is not possible until 2028 at the earliest, some form of interim measure would go part of the way to addressing the issue. A review of the fees for glass is necessary. They are too high and could have unintended consequences that would cause an increase in the use of less recyclable packaging materials such as plastic. It would also be helpful if DEFRA amended its clarifying guidance to provide more flexibility on how producers can account for EPR fees so that they do not have to absorb the hit in one go in April.
I welcome the opportunity to raise this issue for the pub and brewing sector, which has faced tough economic headwinds. These increased costs for businesses will inevitably impact the price of food and drink for consumers and the cost of living. The Government estimate that in the region of 85% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to consumers.
It is also worth noting that EPR is only one part of a complex packaging regulation landscape—I know the Minister is aware of that—which includes the plastic packaging tax, packaging recovery notes, regulation on single-use plastic items, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme. Consistency of policy across the four nations of the UK is crucial. The Welsh Government propose to keep glass as part of their DRS, whereas that is not the case for the rest of the UK.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in Parliament. The pub and brewing sector has faced a bit of a battering from policies in the last year. I thank the Minister for listening, and I look forward to what she has to say about EPR.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can keep their speeches to five minutes, everyone should get in. I call Will Forster.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Lewell; I will endeavour to keep to five minutes. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this timely debate so soon after the Budget.
As the hon. Lady said, there is growing concern about the extended producer responsibility scheme. I call it the “glass bottle tax” if I am trying to explain it to a constituent I am having a drink with in one of Woking’s pubs, because they do not get EPR. They understand that it is a glass bottle tax, but they do not get the reasoning behind it.
EPR is intended to reduce waste and increase recycling, which are aims that we all probably share. However, the scheme risks hurting our economy, and especially the hospitality sector, which has suffered so much during the covid pandemic and the cost of living crisis. That is especially true in my constituency. We are proud to have 34 pubs and one brewery—Thurstons in Horsell. We are also home to the brewing giant Asahi, which owns and operates Fuller’s brewery in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), which I have had the pleasure of visiting—in my opinion, it counts as a constituency visit.
I am very glad to have Thurstons and Asahi, and I am very glad that Woking has a thriving hospitality community, but it is under threat. The hospitality industry supports over 2,000 jobs and contributes £131 million to our economy, yet the glass bottle tax will impose more than £150 million in new costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. At a time when businesses are struggling with inflation, energy prices and higher taxes, that additional burden will deter investment and put jobs at risk.
Will the Minister commit to reviewing EPR fees in the light of decisions announced at yesterday’s Budget? The fact that beer duty is rising in line with inflation will have an impact, and will add yet another cost at a time when hospitality is already under pressure. Brewers and pubs tell me that they cannot absorb both. The continued effect of higher beer duty, which is way out of kilter with our European neighbours, and EPR charges will inevitably reduce investment and will add to the growing trend of pubs and hospitality venues being closed down.
The Government cannot tax their way to growth. There are serious issues with double charging. Although EPR is meant to apply only to household waste, many pubs already pay for commercial waste collection. Despite that, the sector faces £60 million in costs, with some larger pubs paying as much as £2,000 more each year.
DEFRA has accepted the flaw but does not have a plan to correct it until year three of the scheme. That is not acceptable, and pubs cannot afford to wait that long. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government will take now to prevent businesses from paying twice for the same waste. Will paying twice be backdated when the charges are introduced in year three?
The Office for Budget Responsibility has classified EPR as a tax, which adds further uncertainty to brewers and pub owners. Without clear guidance on reporting and future fees, businesses cannot plan, invest and expand. At a time when our economy needs stability, that uncertainty threatens growth, which is one of the Government’s key drivers.
The Liberal Democrats have proposed a 5 percentage point VAT cut on hospitality because we feel that we need to support the hospitality sector, particularly to compensate for EPR. Even if only half of that VAT cut were passed through, the average household would save £135 by April 2027. The remaining benefit would help businesses to stay open, protect jobs and support wages. We know that for a fact as we saw it with the 2008 VAT reduction, at least 52% of which was passed on to customers.
Our goal should be support responsible environmental reform while protecting pubs, breweries and the hospitality sector. They hold our British communities together, and they are a big part of the British way of life. Like the hon. Member for Gower, I urge the Minister to listen to the industry. Will the Government address the risks of double charging in our economy? Can they provide clarification on fees? Will the Minister work with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the harm to the brewing and hospitality sector?
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this important debate.
I am co-chair of the APPG on food and drink, and my constituency is in the heart of the logistics corridor, so it will be no surprise to Members that I have been inside a warehouse or two and that packaging is something I talk about a lot with my businesses. I recently visited Graphic Packaging International’s site at Bardon and saw at first hand the changes it is already making to food and drink packaging to reduce its environmental impact. The company has been innovating with packaging to transition products that are harder to recycle to ones made of more sustainable materials.
The company recognises that extended producer responsibility is an important step forward in the way organisations and consumers respond to the environmental challenges of packaging, but also that it increases costs for consumers. As an international company, it also told me that the lack of consistency in approach across the UK and Europe has the potential to stifle innovation in packaging, and that the costs of EPR in the UK have been a barrier to transitioning to the more environmentally friendly packaging that is used in the European Union. It pointed out that plastic is lighter than fibrous materials, so there is a risk that the fee structure could inadvertently reduce the use of more sustainable materials.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that challenge regarding the fee structure for different materials and the costs of implementing recycling. The company gave me a small example: a pack of six cans in a supermarket can be wrapped in plastic or held together by card; the card is not only more expensive to deliver but, because of its weight, more expensive under EPR. The company wants us to look at that issue and see whether it is sustainable in the long term for the better choice to be more expensive.
One of Britain’s biggest exports is waste, and British recycling has flatlined. The successful implementation of EPR has the potential to reverse that worrying trend, but we have to keep an eye on cost. There is undoubtedly room for change, and the funding opened up by the fees will allow more investment to explore recycling alternatives. I recently visited Recycleye, an organisation that is using technology and artificial intelligence to improve the recycling of Tetra Pak materials. That is a long way from the vision of the commingled materials recycling centre, and it has the potential to recycle more of the materials that are sent for sorting.
Customers want to change their habits and feel like they are doing their bit to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. That brings me to the launch of a really positive project that was pulled together by industry, which wants to change and do the right thing. The Flexible Plastic Fund’s FlexCollect project ran a pilot in 10 local authorities—including mine, North West Leicestershire—that aimed to understand how to collect and recycle flexible packaging, from bread bags to crisp packets, confectionary packaging and food pouches. Flexible plastic packaging itself is generally a resource-efficient material: it is lightweight and can play a role in protecting food from becoming waste. It represents nearly a quarter of all UK consumer packaging, but the system for recycling it in the UK is fragmented. I would like to hear from the Minister how we are going to resolve some of the challenges related to all the materials we are using and recycling centres.
What was really interesting about the pilot is that participating households were so surprised by the amount of recycling that they could put in their bags. These kinds of projects are really useful, and the extended producer responsibility funding should be used for them, but we must also listen to the concerns of industry. Will the Minister undertake a full assessment of industry concerns about how fees for the scheme have been calculated, and of how money collected will increase recycling at the kerbside without pushing too much cost on to the businesses that deliver the packages?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for setting the scene so well, as always.
EPR is a UK-wide strategy aimed at addressing issues with waste and improving recycling. I often give a Northern Ireland perspective, and we are part of this because the EPR applies to Northern Ireland too. We have been doing our best with our local councils to encourage better recycling strategies and to get our waste management under control. EPR is a decent and progressive strategy that aims to do that. It is good to be here to give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate, as always.
In Northern Ireland, recycling rates vary wildly between councils. I am pleased that Ards and North Down council has taken significant steps to improve waste figures across the borough where I live. Northern Ireland households produce some 1 million tonnes of waste annually, with packaging a substantial fraction of that. Before I was elected to Parliament, I was in the Assembly and on the council back home. I am going to age myself by saying that I remember when the council brought in recycling, with the introduction of the blue bins. I was not quite sure what it meant, and neither were my constituents, but now we are all focused on what we can recycle. I have my son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren staying with me—wee Freya is seven and wee Ezra is three. At that age, they know what is to be recycled. It is incredible that at that age they are working for the future. Whenever granddad goes to put something in the bin, if I have not put it in the right bin they will tell me which the right bin is—out of the mouths of babes and sucklings does the wisdom flow.
Under EPR many producers in Northern Ireland that were previously outside heavy regulation must register and report packaging data. It is important that we have the data, because that is how we can show improvements. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has suggested that many smaller businesses were unaware of or confused by the guidance around EPR, and sometimes that is the case.
I have three asks for the Minister. I welcome her to her place—I should have done that earlier; I apologise. I think we all know that she is totally committed to this, so we will get very helpful answers later in the debate. On the financial costs—packaging fees and the cost of compliance schemes, for example—small businesses often have limited liquidity. It is important that we make that point. Even modest annual EPR fees can cause strain if margins are tight or the volume of packaging is not the same. That needs to be looked at, to ensure that small businesses are not forced into closure because they cannot keep up with EPR costs. Will the Minister ensure that we can work alongside small businesses and navigate the roles that they have to play within the financial restrictions that they have?
I think of the small businesses in my constituency, which are the backbone of the community. I would hate to think that the transitional support is not there to guide them through this change, so I again ask the Minister to make sure that that support is there; I know that she has discussions with DAERA in Northern Ireland. Government must make allowances and ensure that the EPR process is as accessible as possible.
Recent data show that UK households produced around 5.6 million tonnes of packaging waste in 2023—a massive environmental burden—due to single-use packaging and over-packaging. This scheme shifts the cost of dealing with vast quantities of packaging waste from local councils and taxpayers to the producers who generate the waste in the first place, but there are also concerns about whether our recycling and waste management infrastructure is ready to cope with the increased volumes and the more stringent sorting. We have reached targets, but we want to do better, and we need a wee bit of Government help to ensure that that gets across.
There is a proportion of businesses, including some in Northern Ireland, facing disproportionate burdens under EPR, from increased costs to reporting complexity. The Government need to work alongside DAERA and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that there is a pathway to accessibility and that the viability of our small businesses is not undermined. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gower for raising the issue today, and I look forward to engaging further. I know the Minister will engage with us all, and with the Assembly, and that is really important.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on initiating it. I back everything she said about glass, which affects Felinfoel brewery in my constituency very badly, as well as Parsons Pickles, which produces shellfish and pickled vegetables. Because of the time limit, I may not have time to say much more about glass, because I also want to talk about steel.
Steel is hugely important to me. I have the Tata Trostre packaging factory in my constituency. It is the only steel packaging factory in the UK, and it currently produces 400,000 tonnes of packaging steel each year, supports 5,000 jobs across the country in the supply chain and contributes £4 billion to the UK economy. It produces a whole range of different qualities of steel, which can be used to make the various parts of food and drink cans, with slightly different qualities and strengths for the base, body, ring pull and so on.
Steel is one of the most recyclable materials we have; in fact, it is the most recycled packaging in Europe. In 2024, steel packaging achieved an 86.6% recycling rate, making it the UK’s most recycled packaging material. The recycling rate for plastic is only 53%, and for fibre-based cartons it is 29%. Of course, we can go on and on recycling steel—it can be recycled forever. The fees under the EPR scheme should reflect that quality; the ability for a material to be recycled over and over again is valuable. Currently, the EPR values metal the same as materials that can only be recycled once, and then into something less recyclable or even unrecyclable and of much lower value. Recycling steel can also save 70% of the energy that would be needed to produce new steel.
Food cans are also very easy to sort. I was going to say that even a child can do it, but even an adult can easily understand in which bin, or which part of a segregated kerbside collection, a can should go. We all know that is not the case for alternative forms of packaging, which can be made of complex layers of different materials. Is it paper? Is it plastic? Is it foil? What is it? Likewise, mechanical sorting of steel is easy.
Another quality of steel is that it is incredibly strong, so it can be four times thinner than competing containers. Unfortunately, that also makes it two times heavier, and that is where we get punished under the EPR fees. However, in her reply to me in June, the Minister mentioned that volume is also a factor—and think about the volume of some of the fancy doo-dah packaging all over the place. We need to come back to that, because some other forms of packaging do not do well on volume, and they certainly do not do well on recyclability, not to mention the worry about them being made abroad cheaply and brought over here. We have enough challenges in the steel industry as it is, as I am sure the Minister will be aware.
We have a fantastic material in steel. Of course, it has been a very difficult time for steel in south Wales. Trostre has traditionally been supplied by Port Talbot, where the last blast furnace was closed before the electric arc furnace was built. We are very much looking forward to the opening of the electric arc furnace, which is a fantastic recycling asset, and a lot of work is being done to ensure that we will be able to use the EAF steel for the range of products produced at Trostre. In the meantime, though, that brings the added pressure of having to source steel elsewhere, as well as our usual challenges of a highly competitive market and energy costs. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of some support on the way for energy intensive industries.
The current EPR fee methodology does not recognise recyclability or material value. Instead, it prioritises material weight, meaning heavier but more sustainable materials such as steel and glass face higher fees, while lighter, less recyclable plastics gain a competitive edge.
The issues that I want the Minister to focus on strongly are: action as soon as possible, or we are going to lose our industries; and a reform of EPR fees to reward genuine recyclability and circular value. The basic fees per tonne for steel need to be three times lower than for fibre composite or plastic alternatives. We absolutely must differentiate by end-of-life outcomes and the scrap value, which would, again, bring the UK model into line with some of the best EU practice, such as the Belgian system.
If we are not careful, between the EPR and high excise duty, we could discourage investment in the UK because firms will want to set up plants elsewhere. We will deter the growth that we all want to see.
There is a huge amount to do. I would like to know what engagement there has been with stakeholders since the letter of 7 June, what stage that engagement is now at, and whether any progress has been made. I will finish on that note.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing this debate.
I come at this issue from a slightly different angle. In my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby, I have an incredibly impressive business, Encirc, one of the largest glass manufacturers in the UK. I have had the pleasure of visiting the factory and meeting the impressive team. It employs 1,000 people. Quite rightly, as the Member of Parliament for Runcorn and Helsby, it is my responsibility to do everything I can to protect jobs there.
Encirc is owned by Vidrala, which is looking at a £500 million investment in Encirc, which is so important for the north-west and for the UK. It is now reassessing that £500 million investment because of this tax, which is unfairly penalising glass as a material. I have jobs and investment at risk in my constituency.
On the impact of the EPR, first, the proposed level of the EPR for glass in this country is the highest of such schemes in the world. In Germany, for example, glass is cheaper than any other material for use in bottles. I ask the Minister to please reassess the level of fees for glass as a material.
Secondly, I want to point to the potential impact on manufacturing jobs and businesses. The 120,000 jobs in the glass manufacturing industry nationally are potentially affected, and could be endangered with these increased costs. The EPR is already causing significant business damage, leading to falling revenues in the UK glass manufacturing sector, primarily in the north of England.
Customers of my glass manufacturer are already switching to less environmentally friendly products. That is what does not make sense about the way that the Government have calculated the fees. Customers are switching to plastics or cans; glass is infinitely recyclable and those materials are not. From an environmental point of view, it just does not make sense.
There is a disproportionate burden on glass. Glass will bear £500 million of the £1.5 billion cost to businesses of this EPR in the current fee format, despite being less than 5% of total packaging in the UK. It is totally disproportionate, and penalises glass manufacturers.
The solution that I ask the Minister to look at is, first, urgently changing the inaccuracies in the current fee methodology, which includes glass having an inaccurately low value in EPR, inflating the EPR price. Secondly, would she please look at recalculating the fees based solely on volume, not weight, as soon as possible, to ensure that glass producers and users are not being unfairly penalised to the benefit of plastics and cans? We must act now to avoid further material switching by customers.
To summarise, I ask the Minister to look at moving from a weight-based fee calculation, which penalises glass and favours less environmentally friendly plastics and cans, to a volume-based fee calculation. In Runcorn and Helsby, 1,000 jobs and £500 million of investment are at risk.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate.
EPR, at its base, is a tax on recycling. Recycling is devolved in Wales, and we would not normally speak on devolved issues as Plaid Cymru spokespeople, but today, I am making an exception, because several local businesses have asked me to highlight the cost to their businesses and to obtain clarity. One such business, Evan Evans, is a small local brewery that produces the best-quality beer in Llandeilo, which is in my constituency. The owner of Evan Evans, Simon Buckley—a direct descendant of the family behind the famous Buckley’s Brewery, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith)—stated:
“I have seldom felt more demoralised than now. The outlook in Wales for a small brewery is not good. Wages bills are going through the roof, and were it not for the fact that we celebrate 260 years of family brewing in Wales in 18 months’ time, I would shut up shop.”
Those are damning words.
Rural breweries and small and medium-sized enterprises that employ local people within their communities will feel the cost of EPR the most. These businesses are the backbone of our Welsh tourist sector. Where, locally, is the alternative employment? In my constituency of Caerfyrddin, farming has been hit, contractors are working within calendar dates, national insurance contribution hikes have meant that many young people cannot find alternative work, and as we all know, hospitality is on its knees.
Extended producer responsibility—phased in during 2023, and officially published as legislation in 2024—means that businesses have to report their packaging use, pay fees and purchase packaging waste recovery notes. The prices fluctuate based on supply and demand for recyclable materials—glass, plastic or cardboard—so businesses face cost variability. Previously, if someone’s turnover was less than £2 million or they had less than 50 tonnes of packaging a year, they were exempt, but that has all changed. If they manufacture, import or fill packaging that ends up with consumers, they may be responsible. If they supply packaged goods under their own brand, they may be responsible. If they import packaging products into the UK for sale, they may be responsible. The last one does not affect the manufacturing businesses within my constituency, but the first two do.
As the hon. Member for Gower mentioned, businesses do not mind paying their share, but the lack of clarity between the two ends of the M4 makes it difficult for businesses to prepare and analyse the cost effectively. I say that while acknowledging that Wales has the best recycling rates in the UK; indeed, we are second in the world, with only Austria above us. We want to keep it that way, so we need to work with our businesses. My ask to the Minister is that all Governments speak to each other to get the clarity that my businesses and constituents deserve.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important and timely debate, and on her excellent speech. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s desire to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable, minimise waste and create the foundations for a truly circular economy. Limiting the environmental damage caused by waste requires us to improve our recycling of packaging. However, progress on recycling has been much slower than it needs to be, making it even more vital that we prioritise rethinking how packaging is made and processed.
The extended producer responsibility has the potential to be a key driver in securing a better circular solution for packaging waste. However, its implementation must support, rather than add additional burdens to, the producers expected to deliver it. Liberal Democrats have long been calling for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers as it would obviously improve recycling levels and environmental standards, yet the current approach to EPR raises significant unease about the unpredictability of escalating costs for producers. That will particularly impact the financial viability of many independent businesses across the country, putting their future viability at risk.
As a party, we recognised that the previous system was not fit for purpose following the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry, and supported its recommendations to incentivise better recyclability and transparency of products to help the transition to a circular economy. The reform brought forward by DEFRA will alter the way that local authorities are required to manage household recycling. It is therefore important that local authorities’ role in the scheme is supported, as they are once again being asked to do more while receiving ever-decreasing levels of funding from central Government. With the EPR packaging payment scheme having started last month, the Government have estimated that the shift in cost from local authorities to producers will total over £1.2 billion in its first year.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to reinvest that revenue to improve local recycling infrastructure during EPR’s first year. However, EPR currently lacks a mechanism to ringfence funds and ensure that they are all invested in that infrastructure. Despite PackUK having informed local authorities that they will receive lower payments for a failure to do so, there is great concern within industry that, in future, funds will be redirected to replace central Government spending, threatening the Government’s ultimate ambitions for EPR. Without a firm guarantee to ringfence a certain percentage of funds to be invested in local recycling services, Somerset council, where the Liberal Democrats are now clearing up the mess after 14 years of Conservative maladministration and which, like many local councils, is facing financial difficulty, will be unable to achieve its goal of increasing the county’s recycling rate to 60%.
I am fortunate to represent a constituency with a thriving food and drink sector. Businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton contribute over £29 million annually to our rural economy, supporting 101 pubs and providing employment for over 1,200 constituents. However, the introduction of the EPR in its current form has the potential to erode the profit margins of those vital businesses, forcing them to raise their prices beyond the point their customers can afford, risking the viability of their businesses.
Those concerns have been repeatedly echoed by local brewers and distillers such as Glastonbury Brewing Company and Somerset Spirit in Castle Cary, which, like many others, are having to grapple with serious financial pressures as a consequence of the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions and rising business rates, in addition to EPR.
I remain concerned about the negative impact that the current approach to EPR will have on our hospitality sector, in particular our pubs. Glastonbury and Somerton, as I have just said, is home to a wide and thriving publican community. Those pubs are more than just businesses; they are important pillars of our towns and villages. They bring residents together, create jobs and drive rural growth. A leading example that springs to mind is Curry Mallet’s community pub, the Bell Inn, whose existence has always relied on the generosity of its local community. I pause here to congratulate the community group involved in reopening the Bayford Inn, formerly known as the Unicorn, as a community-run pub in Wincanton, and to wish it every success.
The introduction of EPR may become, as UKHospitality has identified, “a margin killer” for the sector. DEFRA’s approach to EPR has been designed to make businesses responsible for the waste packaging that enters the household recycling stream, but in the case of pubs, their packaging and bottles never leave their premises and they are disposed of through private waste contracts. Consequently, pubs now face a double charge for packaging waste—once through their commercial waste disposal contracts and again through EPR charges having increased the cost of supplies from producers—because the current framework does not exempt non-household waste streams. That means that rural pubs, such as the Catash Inn in North Cadbury, now face being burdened with further charges of up to £2,000 a year because of EPR, adding to the crippling costs being levied against them. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to consider exempting pubs from EPR and allowing time to review the scheme’s scope and timeline. That would, I hope, avoid further damage to our already struggling hospitality sector.
As I have mentioned many times in this place, the UK cider industry is one of our nation’s most distinctive and successful manufacturing sectors, rooted in our rural economy. In the south-west, the cider industry contributes more than £270 million a year to the regional economy, supports more than 5,700 jobs and sustains numerous family farms, with Somerset—of course—the historical and spiritual home of British cider making. My constituency is home to a number of excellent cider makers, including King Brain cider in Little Weston, Tricky Cider in Low Ham and Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, in addition to wonderful orchardists such as Julian, Diana and Matilda Temperley of Burrow Hill cider farm, who have cultivated their orchards for many decades.
Cider makers are generally pretty supportive of a greater circular economy. However, the charges that DEFRA confirmed in June of this year are a real threat to our cider producers, because glass packaging is charged at £192 per tonne, which is one of the most expensive rates in Europe. Given that context, small and independent cider makers are having to decide whether they can continue to use glass to package their produce in the future and keep their businesses viable at the same time. For cider makers in my constituency, that fee equates to about 5p for a 500 ml bottle of cider, and up to 12p for a 750 ml bottle.
Although EPR is intended to promote sustainability, the way it has been implemented will have detrimental financial impacts on independent cider producers who use entirely recyclable packaging and, ironically, could result in them pivoting to use a less environmentally friendly material such as plastic, which has a lower fee, to avoid those exorbitant costs. The introduction of EPR in its current form, when combined with rising employment, energy and raw material costs, already eroding margins, and the forthcoming deposit return scheme, poses a significant threat to our cider industry’s future. Given its economic importance to Somerset, that will be a devastating financial blow for the many fantastic drink businesses in Glastonbury and Somerton. The Liberal Democrats have been consistent on this point: EPR’s fees and implementation must be both fair and sustainable. With producers facing substantial added costs, they need to be properly supported during the transition to a more circular economy, not punished.
Yesterday’s Budget was a missed opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their support for our hospitality sector by cutting VAT, energy costs and employer national insurance contributions. The Chancellor decided to forgo further support and to levy additional taxation on our pubs, breweries and cider makers by bringing alcohol duty in line with inflation, putting more pubs and breweries at risk of closing their doors for the last time.
We are wholly supportive of the Government’s intention to tackle waste by improving recycling processes, but we remain unconvinced that the introduction of the EPR in its current form will achieve the desired goals. By creating a system that will impose unaffordable added costs on producers, the Government run the risk of forcing them to use cheaper and less recyclable materials or else jeopardising the viability of key local businesses that are driving growth—something that the Government should be committed to protecting.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this critical debate.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, the hon. Lady has heard first hand from many stakeholders, including the British Beer and Pub Association, about how the extended producer responsibility regime is directly affecting businesses. We have heard contributions from Members from across the House today, and indeed from across the United Kingdom, proudly standing up for the businesses in their constituencies and highlighting some of the challenges that the scheme is creating, as well as the challenges facing the hospitality, pub and brewery sector in the United Kingdom in the last year under this Labour Government.
As well as the hon. Lady, we have heard powerful representations from the hon. Members for Woking (Mr Forster), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I had to hold myself back from intervening on the hon. Gentleman—for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who talked powerfully about steel packaging, for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).
I am extremely proud of the positive action taken by the previous Conservative Government on packaging and waste. Between 2010 and 2022, the amount of waste going to landfill was successfully reduced by 47%, and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. In 2015, we introduced a charge on single-use plastic bags, resulting in a 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets. Building on that, we went further and banned the use of single-use plastics such as plastic straws, cutlery and cotton buds, which also restricted businesses’ use of other single-use plastics such as plastic plates.
The last Conservative Government also introduced a tax on plastic packaging containing less than 30% recycled plastic, which encouraged businesses to reduce the use of single-use plastics in their supply chains. Finally, we introduced a simpler recycling collection system, which I am pleased the current Government have taken forward from us, thereby continuing to make recycling more user-friendly, cutting down on confusion and the time spent recycling, and ultimately improving recycling rates, which is good for our environment. These actions were achievable and proportionate.
Importantly, the last Government also laid the correct economic foundations to make those changes and supported businesses—which, I have to say, stands in contrast to what we heard yesterday when the Chancellor delivered her autumn Budget. Many Members here joined me to speak in this Chamber in May, when we had a Westminster Hall debate on glass packaging and the EPR scheme. Back then, I raised my concerns with the Minister about the economic situation and spoke about how, when introducing measures that place costs on businesses, the Government have a responsibility to consider whether this is the appropriate time to impose new burdens on businesses. The British Retail Consortium has said that retailers support the “polluter pays” principle, but it is concerned that the levy will not deliver value for consumers in these challenging economic times—times made far worse by this Labour Government and their mishandling of the economy, as we saw in the run-up to, and the delivery of, yesterday’s retrograde Budget.
The hospitality industry is a key growth sector. A June 2023 report by Ignite Economics, which was commissioned by UKHospitality, found that, for every pound that the UK hospitality industry directly contributes to GDP, it creates a further 58p indirectly and a further £1.30 when including the induced impact. That report also outlined that between 2016 and 2023, hospitality increased its annual economic contribution by £20 billion, to £93 billion. Furthermore, since 2016 employment in the sector has risen to 3.5 million, making hospitality the third largest employer in the country. Finally, hospitality contributed £54 billion in tax receipts to the Treasury last year.
Unfortunately, it appears that this Government do not understand that higher costs and taxes burden businesses and can cause them to close, leading to job losses and destroyed livelihoods. Since the autumn Budget last year, figures published in August of this year show that two hospitality venues are closing every day—including over 100 pubs and restaurants.
Turning again to glass, which is a key reason behind this debate, glass packaging is 100% recyclable—and infinitely recyclable, meaning it can be recycled again and again without losing quality. The previous Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), received a joint letter from the British Beer and Pub Association, British Glass Manufacturers’ Confederation, Scotch Whisky Association, WineGB, Wine and Spirit Trade Association and UKHospitality. The letter warned the Government about the “numerous economic headwinds” that businesses are facing, and highlighted that, while glass represents only 5% of the volume of containers placed on the market, the glass charges cover approximately 30% of the scheme’s cost. The fees are much higher for glass than any other materials, at 10p per average bottle of wine and 17p for every average bottle of spirits, eight times as high as equivalent EU schemes. Indeed, those organisations said in a joint statement:
“There is a risk that without action from the UK government to reduce these fees and move to meaningfully support businesses rather than restrict them, the scheme will result in producers switching to less sustainable materials and that many producers will be charged twice—further restricting investment into the economy.”
Does the Minister agree that that is clearly not how a circular economy should run?
The Minister may be familiar with Mermaid gin and its iconic bottles, which are so beautiful that some companies have upcycled empty bottles into drinking glassware. The Isle of Wight Distillery, which produces Mermaid gin, has said that bottles were designed to be reused and returned to the circular economy. As their compliance and sustainability manager noted,
“it would actually be cheaper to put our liquid into plastic bottles.”
Does the Minister agree that no environmental or recycling policy, however well-intentioned, should end up incentivising companies to think about switching to packaging that is actually less environmentally friendly?
Furthermore, in an article published 31 October by Food Manufacture, Josh Pitman, managing director at sustainable packaging firm Priory Direct, is quoted as saying that he is still receiving hundreds of queries from its over 21,000 customers who do not understand EPR and what they need to do. Mr Pitman outlines how his firm has effectively acted as “EPR customer service” and is quoted as saying that
“there appears to be a lack of clear, helpful guidance and limited proactive engagement with affected businesses from government, aside from some overly exclusive and expensive events featuring official spokespeople.”
What action will the Minister take to provide clearer and more accessible guidance to affected businesses?
The Minister may also be aware that One Water, a water brand that seeks to provide clean water and sanitation to communities around the world, has warned that EPR is placing a disproportionate burden on compliant companies, with the scheme estimated to cost the firm £140,000 in 2025. It is estimated that the scheme has already contributed to a £400,000 loss in glass product sales, mostly through lost hotel, bar and restaurant sales. How will the Minister work with stakeholders to ensure that compliant companies are not disproportionately affected?
Climbing food prices, record levels of farm closures, two pubs or restaurants closing a day and business confidence at a 15-year low, as well as the awful costs of the family farm tax—even before it has fully come into force—outline why we are currently in a food and farming emergency. As the Minister may know, last week the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), hosted a food and farming emergency summit to ask farmers, fishermen and food producers what urgent measures they need to survive the next 12 months. The EPR was raised as a key issue that is causing the sector significant concern because food, drink and hospitality businesses, including local pubs, are currently being unfairly charged twice.
Following that summit, and having listened to the measures the industry said are needed, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State wrote to the Secretary of State to ask the Government to work with her on the industry’s call for a rapid review of the impact of the Government’s EPR scheme on the food, drink and hospitality sectors, including through the double charging of pubs, about which we have heard many times today. I hope that the Minister will consider the merit of that request, which came directly from those attending the emergency summit.
I noted in yesterday’s Budget that the Government will: consult in 2026 on the extended producer responsibility and proposals to measure how often and how well local authorities use fees; appoint a producer responsibility organisation by March 2026 to give industry a role in the scheme’s operation; and consult on reforms to the packaging waste recycling note system. Perhaps the Minister will repeat that in due course. That is all well and good, but the sector needs urgent action now to ensure that the EPR system is fit for purpose and that our fantastic food, drink, retail and hospitality sectors are protected and encouraged to thrive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate, and thank hon. Members from across the House who have made valuable contributions today. I am struck by the cross-party consensus. This is the first time we have welcomed a Reform MP—the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin)—to these discussions.
Let us remember that these are the biggest changes to recycling policy since the landfill tax was introduced in 2002, under the last Labour Government. The changes were introduced with cross-party consensus. All parties support what this Government are trying to do. Indeed, the changes are the continuation of much of the policy of the previous Government, but there have been some important changes—we have certainly not done the seven bins that they proposed in the Environment Act 2021.
EPR for packaging is the cornerstone of the recycling reforms. The reforms are designed to drive up the recycling rate to 55% over the next 10 years. The rate has languished at 42% since about 2015, despite what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said. The reforms will increase the quality and quantity of the recycling that local councils collect, support sustainable growth in the UK waste management and reprocessing sector, and reduce our reliance on materials imported from overseas.
We have just come back from the conference of the parties in Belém. The negotiations galvanised all nations to take steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our impact on the planet. Think globally, act locally—this is our local action.
EPR moves recycling costs from us as taxpayers to the packaging producers. It works alongside other reforms to create systematic change. Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and more consistent. From 1 April, we will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether at home, work or school. That will change the quality of the material streams to enable us to move to the much more circular economy that we all want to see.
Mary Creagh
I am going to make some progress, because otherwise we are never going to get through this.
We have already provided £340 million to local councils in England alone, in particular to bring in food waste collection. That is particularly important, because it will allow us to create green gas and digestate, which we can use as fertiliser. We have to move away from the high-input fertilisers we use now.
In this space, pEPR has an important role to play. It will divert packaging from residual waste into recycling. We estimate that the policy will save 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and about £189 million in emissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower spoke about growth. These reforms will support a thriving economy. As a result of these reforms, the waste management sector has committed to create 25,000 new jobs and invest more than £10 billion in the economy. Circular industries, keeping products and materials in circulation for as long as possible, now deliver £67 billion each year to our economy, and growth in this sector is more than double the rate of the overall UK economy.
We have heard concerns, which I shall address quickly. We have met with glass producers—I can go through the list of the meetings. Basically, glass, due to its durability, is uniquely placed to take advantage of the generous financial incentives pEPR provides for reuse, because reusable containers only attract a fee the first time they are used.
The Government recognise the value of the glass sector to the economy and have provided direct support to four of the major container glass manufacturers—Encirc is one of them—through the British industry supercharger scheme to ensure they remain competitive in a global market. I have some details here about how much they are going to save. Four glass companies are in receipt of this support and the package of measures is estimated to save eligible companies around £24 to £31 per MWh and reduce electricity costs so they are more closely aligned with their key international competitors. That is designed to reduce the risk of carbon leakage and help them to compete on the international stage.
Yesterday’s Budget was mentioned. For pEPR, the Chancellor has announced consulting on proposed changes to the packaging recycling note scheme; consulting on options to drive transformation of local authority waste management and ensuring the accountability of pEPR funding. I have written to local authorities, as well as to PackUK, to reassert the need for this money to be spent on collecting packaging waste and not on cross-subsidising other areas of local authority spending; and appointing producer leadership of the scheme by March next year to give industry a central role in running the scheme.
In the hospitality sector, we are publishing a national licensing policy framework, asking licensing authorities in England and Wales to consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits in their decisions; we are appointing a retail and hospitality envoy to champion and deliver these changes; and we are making a commitment to explore changes to the planning framework to make it easier for hospitality businesses to grow.
We heard a lot about the brilliant small businesses in MPs’ constituencies. For small businesses, we have some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme in the world. Businesses with a turnover below £2 million or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market are not obligated to pay pEPR fees or recycling obligations. The exemptions mean that 70% of UK businesses that supply packaging are not obligated under this scheme. We have also heard about issues around the bills and the paying of the bills. To help larger businesses that are obligated, PackUK is offering quarterly payment options to help with cash flow. PackUK will watch the thresholds carefully, knowing that raising them would push costs on to the remaining businesses as local authority collection costs stay the same.
We have been listening to feedback so we have adapted our approach. This time last year, we were working tirelessly with the Environment Agency to bring so-called free riders into compliance—people who were putting glass on the market but had not actually registered with anybody anywhere. That increased the total tonnage of material registered in the scheme and enabled us to reduce the final fees, so the reduction of the base fees for 2025 actually went down by up to 38%, depending on the material.
Let me talk quickly about steel. I met with the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association in September, and officials are following up on that. I am very conscious of the need, when the new arc furnace comes on stream, to make sure that we have a steady supply of scrap steel to enable it to stay in continuous production.
We are also engaging with stakeholders to develop the approach to in-scope packaging. We are looking at household packaging that is sometimes disposed of in business waste—for example, beer and wine bottles can be disposed of in pub bins.
We are looking at changing the recycling assessment methodology for next year to address complex composite packaging, which is really hard to recycle—particularly foil packages, which may have plastic on the inside and may contain paper. I talked to local authorities about that only this week, and we hope to bring forward a solution as soon as possible.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Andy Slaughter
The Minister has a deep understanding of this issue, and we all support the objectives that she is aiming for, but obviously we have come along to bring our problems to her. I hope she will not mind dealing with the two issues that have been raised: double charging for pubs, which is estimated to cost them £50 million, and the fee for glass—the weight versus volume equation—which is estimated to cost brewers £124 million a year. Those are real costs to businesses, many of which are up against the margins and are dealing with other pressures in the hospitality industry.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for his follow-up questions. Several colleagues have raised the issue of cost being calculated by weight and not by unit, but waste management costs are largely driven by weight. We have taken into account other factors that influence collection costs, including the estimated volume of each material in bins and collection vehicles. Glass is a heavy material with a low resale value. A unit of glass packaging costs more for a local authority to manage as waste than an item made up of more lightweight and high-value material. Our recycling assessment methodology changes are published on defra.gov.uk, so people can see the changes that we are proposing to bring in next year and how we are ramping up the fees payable for less recyclable packaging.
Reuse and refill of packaging provides a real opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Earlier this year, GoUnpackaged produced economic modelling that made a compelling case for scaling up reuse in UK grocery retail. That work showed end-to-end system cost savings of up to £577 million a year, highlighting the economic viability of reuse in the UK. In response to that research, major grocery retailers have committed to working together to scale reusable packaging systems. Innovate UK has commissioned a scoping study to develop the blueprint for the first wave of this bold multi-retailer reuse scheme, so change will be coming in this sector pretty fast.
Dr Hudson
The Minister is talking about economic viability. I mentioned that the Government said in the Budget yesterday that they will consult on the EPR scheme, and she has repeated that. The Conservatives are calling for an urgent review. A consultation is not good enough; proverbially, that just kicks the steel can down the track. Will the Government commit to an urgent review so that businesses do not suffer in the coming months?
Mary Creagh
There are two things at play here. One is the recycling assessment methodology. The proposed changes for year two of the scheme are on the website already, and we will be legislating for them. I held a roundtable with packaging producers in July, and we spent the summer looking at different options. People have mentioned the different fees in Germany. Germany has a very large reliance on bring sites, so people bring their glass bottles to a place; they are not collected from the home. It is our household waste collection that makes our fees necessarily higher.
We have looked at dual-use packaging, and various proposals have been put forward, but not a single proposal had unanimous agreement. We are trying to hold the ring between packaging producers, microbreweries, supermarkets and local waste authorities. There is no simple solution to this complex problem—[Interruption.] It is hard. The previous Government devised and put forward legislation on this, and, of course, as soon as that is brought in, all the issues with it come out. We are working on that and we are meeting with them. In my box, I have a submission on proposals for how we carry on looking at that, so today’s debate will genuinely feed into my decision making on it.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution I referred to DAERA in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister engage with them—I know she probably does already—so that we can work together on progress going forward?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I know that one of the issues in Northern Ireland is doing the behaviour change and driving up recycling rates. Communication is one of the most important things, and I take on board the official Opposition’s comments about the communications on this issue. It is incredibly complicated; civil servants are dealing with a massive change programme and everyone is trying to say what matters and how it changes.
Through the simpler recycling reforms, we are asking for everyone to be able to recycle the same things in every local authority and every workplace across the country. That is a massive system change, so there will be some confusion. There will need to be management and communication of that change, and for that we are essentially reliant on our local authority partners to get those messages across. I think I am meeting with Minister Muir shortly—we meet quite a lot to discuss these issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told a story about his grandchildren. In 2002, when we brought in the landfill tax, we had one bin—it was a black bin, and everything went in it—and the question was, “Is this ever going to work? Will recycling ever happen?”. I take great encouragement from the fact that when we tell people, “This is your bit. This is what you can do locally in your home and your kitchen to help to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions,” the vast majority of people want to do the right thing—even, like the hon. Gentleman, by going and picking out the things out of the bin that should be recycled; and if he has not done it, then his grandchildren will do it for him. There are a lot of encouraging stories of hope that we can tell here.
We are looking at the German model and the Austrian model as part of how we might develop on these issues in the future. This package of measures will be the foundation for unlocking the transition to a circular economy in the UK. We hope to publish our circular economy plan in short order. Everything that is in our bins affects us, but we need to look at textiles, construction and waste electricals—there are huge volumes of materials flowing through the economy that we are not capturing.
Sarah Dyke
I want to push the Minister on the plight of our struggling hospitality sector. I asked if she could consider exempting pubs from the EPR scheme at this stage to give a chance to review the scheme and help support our struggling hospitality sector.
Mary Creagh
I have to be brief. As I say, we are keeping all our policies under review. The EPR scheme will not be sorted out quickly—it only went live in October, and here we are in November, asking for a big change. We have also heard that businesses need certainty, so I do not want to set any hares running by saying, “This is all going to change next year.” We need to do it in slow time, by consensus and by working with industry. I thank Members for their valuable contributions to the debate; this feedback will genuinely help us to create a fair transition to a circular economy, as we continue with these important reforms and build a world where the UK leads in innovation and sustainability.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank all Members for their contributions, and the Minister for her response. Swansea council is the second-best local authority in the UK, I believe—I do not know if one of the Minister’s special advisers can get that fact for me. I invite the Minister to speak to the all-party parliamentary beer group in the near future, because I know that that conversation would be important.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging.
Domestic Abuse: Children
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse.
You will be pleased to know what a marvellous pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I would like to begin where we typically end our debates in Westminster Hall, and that is by thanking all hon. Members present. I am well aware that, on a topic such as this, what often compels people to speak is painful lived experience; so I sincerely thank everyone who has come here today, whether to bravely share their own experience or to represent the children in their constituency who otherwise do not have a voice in this place. It is appreciated and truly important.
This debate unfortunately stems from deep tragedy and systemic failure. As many will know, I have tabled it in honour of the 19 children killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse between 2015 and 2024. Their stories are solemn reminders of the danger of placing an outdated emphasis on parental contact above all else.
I recognise that there have been important strides in recent months, and I want to sincerely commend the work of my Government in repealing the presumption of parental contact in family courts and introducing a new police duty to notify schools of domestic abuse incidents. Those are significant steps forward, but we cannot stop here.
While I have rightly praised this Government, I also want to acknowledge the previous Government for introducing the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We are here today because, for the first time, children were recognised as victims in their own right in that legislation. That Act was a vital step forward. It diagnosed the problem we face, but it did not provide an adequate cure.
Paragon, which does incredible work in my constituency of Isle of Wight West, told me:
“As children are now being recognised in their own right as victims of domestic abuse, we are seeing an increase in referrals for support. We have had no increase in funding to provide additional capacity to support children and young people and as a result we have a short waitlist in place. Waiting for this crucial support is not ideal.”
This reality is grimly reflected in the national picture. Women’s Aid’s “On Track” data reveals that there are more children than adults living in refuge spaces, but accessing a refuge does not mean that life returns to normal for those children. Further research by Women’s Aid shows that extended stays in refuge often disrupt education, school and routines. Many still face significant barriers to securing a school place after moving, because their mothers often have to cross local authority boundaries to stay safe. For those children, safety often comes at the cost of stability.
I am deeply grateful to have spoken with abuse survivors, including one of my constituents whose experience illustrates why prevention is so vital. As both a child victim and later a victim in her own relationship, she would have benefited enormously from early intervention. She has bravely agreed for me to share her story today. The following words are hers:
“Before I had even started primary school, domestic abuse had already shaped me. When home isn’t safe, fear becomes your earliest teacher. You don’t play freely in the world—you withdraw from it. Trust feels dangerous, friendships feel risky, and when every day is lived in the shadow of survival, confidence has no chance to bloom, nor your dreams any chance to grow. And in the classroom where children would feel free to learn and explore, that same fear follows you. Concentration becomes impossible, achievement feels out of reach, and you fall behind long before anyone realises, you’re not struggling with the work, you’re struggling with the trauma.
And, like so many children, I became part of a cycle that I never chose. After watching my mother suffer abuse, I unknowingly followed the same pattern. My daughter was born into a home where she, too, witnessed fear, control, and harm—things no child should ever see. Left unchecked, domestic abuse doesn’t just scar one generation; it echoes through the next.
What’s even more tragic is that my abuser had once been a child victim himself. He grew up watching violence without the support, education or therapy he so desperately needed. Without intervention, he grew into the only model he had ever known.
The cycle only ends when children are supported—when they are protected, when they learn about healthy relationships, are given tools to recognise abuse, and helped to heal from the trauma they witness. When they are shown that the devastating effects of domestic abuse do not have to be their inheritance.
I count myself lucky to live on the Isle of Wight, where support for my daughter exists—support that can quite literally save children’s futures. But across the country, too many children do not have this help. And without it, they stand little chance of breaking the cycle themselves.”
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given that the concept of parental alienation—largely used by fathers against mothers in cases involving domestic violence in the family courts—does not have a robust, methodologically sound or scientific basis, the use of regulated and unregulated experts on it should be prohibited in the family courts?
Mr Quigley
There is very little I can add, other than to say that I wholeheartedly agree. That is a very important part of this debate, so I thank my hon. Friend sincerely.
That survivor’s story is, heartbreakingly, just one among many that I know will echo across our communities. In the year ending March 2024, an estimated 1.8 million children in England were affected by domestic abuse. Although 70% of affected children have stated that they would seek support for domestic abuse, 61% state that they would not know where to go to find it. The Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls is noble, but we must ensure that every child is protected, that court-ordered safeguards are robust, and that trauma support for newly single parents is properly funded. Education and community support must play a central role in breaking the cycle of intergenerational abuse, empowering future generations to prevent harm, protect potential victims and stop abusers before they begin to engage in this behaviour.
I therefore call on the Government to take the following actions: to amend the Children Act 1989 to reflect better the lived experience of children and young people affected by domestic abuse, and to embed our enhanced understanding of abuse, making it clear that coercive control constitutes harm to children; to publish a clear timeline for implementing the family court reforms recommended in the Ministry of Justice harm panel review of 2020; to roll out mandatory multi-agency training on domestic abuse across the family justice system; and to invest in the design and delivery of the violence against women and girls prevention programmes in schools and other educational settings. The political will is there, and I believe that we have the right voices in charge to enact the change that we need and that our children deserve, but we must take decisive action to stop this silent crisis from escalating into a catastrophe. We owe it not only to survivors, but to the women and children who are no longer with us. Their stories cannot be in vain.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Ms Jardine. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing the debate. I had thought that I might need to intervene on him to allow him to catch his breath, but he managed to share some deeply emotional stories very well.
I am here to talk about Sara Sharif, a constituent of mine who was abused, tortured and murdered by those who should have loved her. The safeguarding report was published earlier this month. I will not read it all, but I want to highlight some particular issues to shape the debate, and I hope the Minister will respond to them. The safeguarding report had 15 recommendations, some national and some local. I would like the Minister to confirm that she and her team will read the safeguarding report and act on those recommendations with the urgency they deserve. We need to set a precedent that safeguarding reports with national implications are responded to by the Government as a matter of policy and urgency. That has not happened yet.
I hope that the Minister will take away the lessons learned on the home-schooling rules that were highlighted in the safeguarding report. Home-schooling is hugely beneficial for some children, but Sara Sharif’s father used those loopholes to hide the abuse. I hope that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that we register all children and that any parent suspected of abusing their child loses their right to home-schooling. People should have a right, but not when there are safeguarding concerns. Lots of amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and I hope that that one is taken forward.
Will the Minister comment on the inadequacies not only of Surrey county council’s children’s services, but of under-pressure children’s services across the country? Vulnerable children are being looked after by overworked social workers who need better training—the safeguarding report says so. We should train and support them better. They wanted to take Sara Sharif away from her family before she was born, but they were convinced otherwise. Can we learn those lessons and empower people to protect our future generation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I am confident that we will get everybody in if speakers can keep themselves to five or six minutes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this debate. It is incredibly emotional, and he opened it passionately and well.
There are children in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and across our country, whose lives are being shaped, often silently, by domestic abuse. In Stafford borough, one in four women will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. And across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, in a three-month period between April and June this year, nearly 500 children needed support from a local domestic abuse service. Yet, despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognising children as victims in their own right, less than a third of children whose guardian sought help were able to access support. There is legislation, but it is not doing enough or translating to change.
There are ways in which we are fortunate in Stafford. Organisations such as Staffordshire Women’s Aid and the integrated local services supporting victims and their children do extraordinary and often unseen work. Their leadership shows what it takes to make legislation real. I pay special tribute to Charlotte Almond, the exceptional chief executive officer of Staffordshire Women’s Aid. Charlotte has been unwavering in her communications with me, and yesterday she raised the hidden harm that children face through post-separation abuse where perpetrators continue their coercive control through family courts and the children themselves. She told me:
“Every service must see and hear the child as a victim in their own right.”
She is correct.
I acknowledge that the Government have made significant progress. The Ministry of Justice’s commitment to repeal the presumption of parental involvement is a landmark moment. The family courts have long been a site of acute harm for women and children. Ending the assumption that contact with both parents is automatically in a child’s best interests is not just welcome; it is saving lives. This is a huge win for victims and for the frontline organisations that have fought for it. Every one of them deserves incredible respect.
I have been told that our mission to halve violence against women and girls has made waves among those fighting to prevent violence. For the first time in decades, there is a genuine sense of hope in the sector. I was told by an activist that, for the first time in their life, change feels like it is on the horizon. But ambition must become action. All of our agencies—the police, social care, health and education—must look at risk-based assessments and whether they are taking into account the needs of children. We must ensure that every process is child-centred and that the non-abusing parent is supported, not blamed. We must hear children’s voices in every decision that is made.
A constituent of mine, whose identity I will protect, wrote to me recently. She told me of her daughter, a 10-year-old child in clear distress. The child documented her fear and wrote a secret letter begging not to go with a father who frightens her. He tore it up in front of her. Despite repeated reports, evidence and professional concerns, my constituent’s concerns were dismissed by agencies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is giving some personal stories, which are always very hard to tell because their seriousness and trauma always lies with us in our hearts. I wish the hon. Lady well as she pursues her case, and I support her.
Leigh Ingham
The hon. Member is correct that these are really emotional subjects. It is happening to too many children across our country, and my constituent says it better than I could:
“This is not just about my family; it highlights a much wider and deeply concerning issue. Too many parents are silenced and disbelieved when trying to protect their children from post-separation abuse. Agencies are quick to label these cases as ‘conflict’ or ‘parental alienation’, rather than recognising patterns of coercive control that continue long after relationships end.”
Until this Government ended the presumption of parental involvement, those abusers could continue to weaponise their children against their own parent, forcing the victim who left them to continue to be held to their abuser’s will. That has to end. I will follow the progress very closely.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that children who have suffered abuse and neglect can exhibit behaviours at school and other social settings that would have them punished or excluded from those settings? Abuse has knock-on effects and a wider impact on the whole of a child’s life.
Leigh Ingham
It is a widely acknowledged fact that if a young person or child experiences abuse, it continues to have a wide range of impacts throughout their life. It is important that this Government have set the direction. The legislation is there, the ambition is there and the sector is ready. We must match ambition with investment, law with implementation, and promises with performance, because children cannot wait. They deserve safety, stability and a childhood free from fear.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate. This is a heartbreaking topic. Tackling and preventing the harms being caused to children in their home demands urgent attention.
When I think about domestic abuse against children, my mind often goes back to the posters we had when I was growing up, and that we may have seen recently in shopping centres and train stations, with two adults arguing and a child crouched in the corner and watching in fear. That image is everywhere when we talk about children and domestic abuse: the child on the sidelines, quietly absorbing the trauma around them.
The reality is far worse than that familiar picture, because children are not just witnesses: 1.8 million children in the UK are experiencing domestic abuse right now. Women’s Aid has found that, in the last 30 years, 67 children have been killed by a parent who was also a perpetrator of domestic abuse, often during contact arrangements. That statistic and the fact it could happen during contact arrangements genuinely stopped me in my tracks. The more recent National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children briefing on child deaths due to abuse or neglect from July of this year estimates that at least one child a week is killed through abuse or neglect. In our country—in any country—that is completely unacceptable.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognises children as victims in their own right, which was the right move. However, I came across another troubling fact during research for this debate. In 2022, after that legal change, less than a third of survivors who wanted support for their children were able to get it. That demonstrates that changing the law does not automatically cause tangible change. If we do not fund the services or create spaces for children to heal and feel safe, the law is just a line on a page.
I was disappointed not to hear anything about funding for tackling domestic child abuse and violence against women and girls in the Budget this week. It is important that the Government back up their intentions and ambitions to tackle this with real resources and funding.
I thank organisations such as the NSPCC and the Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, which work across Kirklees and West Yorkshire. My office often refers families to them, whether for counselling, for children recovering from abuse or for support when navigating domestic abuse cases. However, it is disheartening that we rely so heavily on charities to do the work that should be backed by proper Government strategy and funding.
This year, the proportion of organisations providing children’s domestic abuse services without dedicated funding has doubled from 15.7% to 31.4%. That tells us everything about the state of the system. It is truly worrying after hearing last year about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls. Many of the women who come to my office with cases of domestic violence would have fled to a refuge with their children due to abuse from a partner.
These issues of violence against women and girls, and protecting children from domestic abuse, go hand in hand. Yet when the number of organisations supporting children without any dedicated funding has doubled, it is hard to believe that those commitments are being matched by action. If anything, it shows that children are still an afterthought in a system that claims to protect them. Therefore, will the Minister please confirm what specific extra funding, resources and procedural changes the Government are planning or have allocated to this space?
We were told by the Department for Education that, by the end of 2025, there would be a road map for a child protection authority—a recommendation that the Government received from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—but we have heard very little since. The commitments are there and the reports all show the urgent need for long-term systemic change, yet we are not seeing that change actually happening. Will the Minister confirm when the road map for a child protection authority can be expected?
Children deserve better than posters of fear and a system that waits until harm has already been done; they deserve to be protected, to recover and to grow up feeling safe and loved. Right now, too many are falling through the cracks, and we owe it to them to fix that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate and on his powerful opening speech.
For far too long, our understanding of the impact of domestic abuse on children failed to recognise the reality. Children do not simply witness domestic abuse, they experience it, they suffer it and they are profoundly affected by it. Living in a home in which domestic abuse is taking place is traumatising for children. It makes them feel frightened, insecure, sad and alone. It undermines the essential security that the home environment should provide. It affects children’s understanding of relationships and what is normal, and children often take on a completely misplaced sense of responsibility for what is happening or for protecting other members of the family.
These issues are, sadly, very widespread. One in seven children and young people will have an experience of domestic abuse at some point during their childhood. The Office for National Statistics records that, in 32% of domestic abuse cases, there was at least one child under the age of 16 living in the household.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent report, “Victims in Their Own Right? Babies, children and young people’s experiences of domestic abuse”, is a sobering read. The commissioner listened extensively to children and young people affected by domestic abuse. They told her it is important that they are listened to, that they are taught how to recognise domestic abuse and that they receive proper support to recover from it.
They also told the commissioner about some of the barriers they experience in getting support, including failing to recognise that abuse is taking place and the influence of other family members. They also cited unwanted contact arrangements as a barrier. I therefore welcome the Government’s recent decision to end the presumption of contact, and I pay tribute to Claire Throssell, who has campaigned so hard in the name of her sons, Jack and Paul, to see this change in the law.
Claire’s case is utterly heartbreaking. The Education Committee was privileged to hear from her directly earlier this year during our inquiry into children’s social care. Jack and Paul’s father was abusive to Claire. It was one of the reasons—which they clearly expressed—that they did not want contact with him. They were murdered by their father on a contact visit mandated by the court. Jack and Paul were not listened to, and Claire was not listened to when she clearly warned of the danger—the tragedy of Jack and Paul’s deaths was the consequence.
The removal of the presumption of contact in cases of domestic abuse is a landmark moment in the protection of children from domestic abuse. It recognises that children are victims of domestic abuse in their own right, and that domestic abuse occurring in the home is also a significant risk factor for children. Women’s Aid reports that, over the past 30 years, 67 children have been killed by a parent who was also a perpetrator of domestic abuse in circumstances related to child contact arrangements, including Jack and Paul. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West pointed out, 19 of those children were murdered between 2015 and 2024.
Apsana Begum
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, following the removal of the presumption of contact, to now launch an expedited parliamentary audit to assess evidence of forced child removals? It something that Right to Equality and the Survivor Family Network have pulled together evidence around and are advocating for.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in her remarks.
We have a children’s social care system, and the tragic case of Sara Sharif—which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke very powerfully about—is an important case in point where the arrangements that should be in place to protect children, decide the right outcome for them and provide an environment in which they can be safe too often fail to do that. That speaks to the need for reform. The removal of the presumption of contact puts children’s experiences, their voices and safety, back at the heart of contact decisions, where they should always have been.
I want to turn to the question of support for children who have experienced domestic abuse. Research by Women’s Aid found that 70% of children said that they would seek help in a situation of domestic abuse, but that 61% did not know where to go to find any help. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner also found that fewer than a third of victims and survivors of abuse who wanted support for their own children were able to get it—so more than two thirds were unable to access that support. Setting that against the very significant funding pressures experienced by both domestic abuse support services and children’s social care, it is clear that access to support is not currently adequate.
I am particularly concerned to read Women’s Aid’s findings from its 2025 annual audit that the proportion of organisations running children and young people’s domestic abuse services in the community without dedicated funding doubled from 15.7% to 31.4% this year. There are always costs to failing to meet the needs of children. The costs of children not being able to access support to recover from domestic abuse are seen in ongoing harm to victims and also in additional need for health services, because people who have experienced domestic abuse as children have higher mental and physical health needs, especially if they are not supported.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that the views of child victims of domestic abuse are considered when developing policy and designing services, but it is important that that translates into changes that increase awareness of abuse among children, make it easier to disclose abuse and seek help, and which make support more readily available so that children can recover.
Finally, it is important that we focus on not only what happens when abuse occurs, but how we reduce incidents of abuse in the first place. The Education Committee has emphasised the need to improve early intervention by strengthening and increasing funding for the Families First partnership. We welcome the announcement of increased funding this week. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to improve how children learn about healthy relationships at school through relationships, sex and health education and the commitment to tackle misogyny in schools. That requires tackling the pernicious information that young people are accessing online and equipping them with the skills and values to challenge such information among their peers. I hope that the Minister can set out today some further information on how those commitments will be implemented.
Tackling this issue and ensuring that every child grows up knowing how to keep themselves safe and with a good understanding of what makes for a healthy relationship, along with the ability to spot when that is not happening around them, and the ability to access help and support when they need it is a vital part of creating a country where every child can thrive.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if we are going to get everyone in, please keep to five minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for leading this debate on a difficult subject.
Sometimes debates like these are a realisation of the sad reality of life across the United Kingdom. I will try to give a quick Northern Ireland perspective. I am always shocked to read the stats and facts about the situation back home. We all have family and friends, and we can sometimes be quite sheltered from the real issues for so many families across the nation. How do we improve that?
It is always important to tell the story of the situation back home. In 2024, more than 5,000 children in Northern Ireland were referred to social services on the grounds of domestic abuse concerns. The Department of Health concludes that neglect and physical abuse remain the main reasons for registration on the child protection list. They account for 84% of all registrations—that is almost 4,400 young children.
Children who experience physical abuse are at a significantly higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem and developmental delays. Data from the Police Service of Northern Ireland refers to some 30,000 domestic abuse incidents in the year to March 2025. That is a shocking figure, but many of us suspect that it is only the tip of the iceberg and that there are many more. Women’s Aid, which does a fantastic service back home in providing support for victims of domestic abuse, concludes that in 90% of domestic abuse incidents, children are in the same or an adjacent room when violence happens.
I have spoken to a social worker, and I want to tell hon. Members some of what they said. First, I thank social workers for all they do in supporting young children and taking on the incredibly heavy role that they have; I imagine that in most cases what they have to hear is not easy to listen to. The social worker stated that the mental health impact is huge, from depression to anxiety, self-harm and substance abuse. It is not always immediate: it can progress from a childhood to adolescence and into the young adult stage. In some cases, there is a reflection: children will see the role models in their life display certain behaviours, and they almost replicate them, because this is what they deem to be normal. This can be physical, verbal, emotional and, unfortunately, sexual abuse. That is not in any way to say that all children who witness abuse will turn into abusers—I am not saying that—but children who witness it are socialised into thinking that it is normal and okay, and that that is how adults behave. Many traits and challenging behaviours in young children may come from trauma that children witness over the years. This is a clear example of how violence in a household can be very confusing for them.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place, commented on the issue of parental alienation, which is a form of domestic abuse that is not often talked about but has a direct impact on the development of a child. It occurs when a child is systematically manipulated, pressured or influenced by one parent into rejecting or fearing the other parent without legitimate justification, leading to a breakdown in the relationship between the child and the parent. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the issue, and on how legislation can be strengthened to ensure that parents are not unnecessarily alienated from their children through the manipulation of another parent.
It is imperative that we protect children. This issue genuinely saddens me, as it saddens everybody in this House. We all have personal stories of those we know and have met over the years. We all want children to have the support they need. It is a sad and unfortunate reality that we will probably never be able to protect every child, although we would love to, from the devastation of this world. I know that the Minister, who is a sympathetic and compassionate lady, will answer our questions.
What can we do? We can talk about this issue and normalise the conversation. We can provide support and properly fund our social services, who go above and beyond to protect children. What they do is sometimes forgotten. It should not be. They are the backbone, and their work should not go unnoticed.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate.
Domestic abuse does not just claim adult lives; it devastates children. Lybah, a child survivor of domestic abuse and a SafeLives changemaker, said:
“As a child I felt like I was often overlooked and was never really acknowledged as a victim of DA. Rather than helping me process what happened to me I was told by services to write down my thoughts and feelings and draw a picture of what a ‘happy family’ should look like.”
Some 71% of adult survivors are unable to access specialist support for their children, according to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. That is why the work of Foundations in finding what works to support child victims—including piloting Bounce Back 4 Kids, a therapeutic programme supporting child recovery—is so important. Every year, around 200 children in the UK are bereaved by domestic homicide. Shockingly, we still do not know the actual number, because it is not officially recorded. Those children are the hidden victims behind the headlines.
Survivor Debrah prevented her father from murdering her mother by hitting him on the head with a poker. He told her that she “had better kill him” or he would kill her as well. A week and a half later, he succeeded in killing her mother. From prison, her father was able to block Debrah from living with her mother’s sister, instead sending her either to his own family or to live with a grandparent who had previously molested her. Her siblings were forced by social workers to visit him in prison. After just 14 months, her father was released and her younger siblings were made to live with him. They were beaten and starved and, within a year, he attempted to kill a new girlfriend. Debrah is one of the many children behind the shocking headlines we see far too often. I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Joanna Simpson Foundation and Children Heard and Seen, which I was honoured to host in Parliament recently, and do so much to support many of these children and the adults they become.
Many of these children face a double loss: one parent to bereavement and one parent to prison. They do so while carrying the stigma of their parent’s actions and the deeply conflicting emotions that come with it. Professionals working with these children often struggle with the language to explain what has happened. They were simply not trained to approach this subject. As there is no statutory mechanism to identify and support children when a parent goes to prison, schools frequently have no idea what a child is living through. Under current UK law, a parent convicted of killing their partner can retain parental responsibility, allowing them to influence important decisions about their children’s lives, causing deep distress for the families and caregivers who are supporting the children left behind.
Jade’s law was meant to change that, and was passed by Parliament in May 2024, but it has still not been implemented. I urge the Government to fast-track this, as families like that of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche are still facing challenges from convicted murderers who continue to exert coercive control over their children from prison. Furthermore, the support they and their carers receive is patchy, short-term and inconsistent. Carers, often grandparents or extended family, are left to navigate grief, financial strain and complex legal processes with little help. Jodie Edith, the grieving mother of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche, said:
“In April 2024, our world went dark after receiving the knock at the door that no parent could ever imagine, telling me that my beloved daughter Kennedi had been killed by her partner of nine years, leaving a child behind. With limited emotional trauma-informed support from counselling services for me, the caregiver, and my grandchild, it left us unable to grieve.”
That is why I hope the Government, in their VAWG strategy, will consider creating a dedicated, specialist national service providing wraparound support for children bereaved by domestic homicide and their carers, alongside a guarantee for every bereaved child to have an independent advocate to ensure their voice is heard in all decisions about their care and future. We also need specialist training for all professionals in contact with these children. Finally, we need to introduce a statutory duty to commission specialist services for child victims of domestic abuse. I proposed that in a debate on the Victims and Courts Bill, and I hope the Government will look at it again as the Bill moves to the House of Lords. I will finish with the words of child survivor Roann Court, who said:
“I watched my mum being brutally killed when I was 15, and the support was virtually non-existent for me and my family, which has had a lasting impact for us all. Children need support—we are as much victims as our parent who is killed.”
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for securing this timely and poignant debate, highlighting that children in their own right are victims of domestic abuse, and sharing some powerful words from his constituents. That is never easy to do, and I commend him for that. Children should be growing up in a safe and loving home, free from violence and fear, and that is not the case for so many. The hon. Member shared a really powerful phrase—domestic abuse does not affect one generation; it echoes through the next. By the end of my speech today, the police will have recorded 11 more instances of domestic abuse. Every 40 seconds, a call is made to the authorities reporting a domestic abuse incident, but analysis shows that only one in five victims of domestic abuse will actually make a report.
The Office for National Statistics estimates that there were nearly 4 million victims in the year ending March 2025; 800,000 cases were recorded in that year. Of those 800,000 cases, only 41,000 offenders were actually convicted. Behind those shocking statistics are women and men who are living in fear, and children, scared for their parent and often for themselves and their siblings. As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) said, these are often our nation’s hidden children.
Failure to protect children should be at the forefront of our minds as policymakers. That is why I absolutely share the Government’s ambition to halve violence against women and girls throughout the duration of this Parliament, thus protecting more children from harm.
The Liberal Democrat campaign, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who grew up in a household experiencing domestic abuse, led to the Government introducing a domestic abuse identifier at sentencing. I thank the Government for working so constructively with my hon. Friend to see that realised in the Sentencing Bill. It will allow the Government to track the data more efficiently and to understand how many domestic abuse perpetrators are currently serving a custodial sentence. It will allow the Government to exclude those abusers from any future early release schemes, and it will show whether the Government’s reducing reoffending programmes are leading to a reduction in reoffending rates of domestic abuse.
We Liberal Democrats have also called for an expansion of the high-quality perpetrator programmes within prison settings to prevent repeated harm. That is not the end of our ambition to better protect victims of domestic abuse. I hope that the collaborative relationship to tackle the issue continues across the House, because there is so much more that can be done.
The system to protect victims and their children is currently disjointed. Often, the gaps in provision are filled by the incredible voluntary sector and charitable organisations. In my constituency of Chichester, organisations such as My Sisters’ House, Paragon and Safe in Sussex, as well as Lifecentre, provide exceptional support to those who have suffered at the hands of domestic abusers.
The reality of increased costs associated with running those organisations, alongside an increasing number of cases, means that those organisations recognise that they could be supporting so many more victims. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West alluded to, with more families coming forward and children being rightly identified as victims of domestic abuse, the numbers are rising.
We need sustainable funding for support services for survivors, including multi-year settlements, so that organisations can plan for longer term programmes, rather than waiting to find out if they can continue to support victims in their area every year.
Mr Forster
Surrey is further advanced than Sussex in local government reorganisation. Something I am experiencing in my constituency that I fear my hon. Friend will soon see in hers is that charities such as Woking’s Your Sanctuary women’s refuge are really nervous about LGR. We do not yet have multi-year settlements, and it is almost impossible to even get a one-year settlement out of an authority that does not yet exist or is about to wound up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to take that point away and ensure that LGR does not hurt the funding that supports women and girls?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend makes a really important point about local government reorganisation. Voluntary and charitable sector organisations rely on local authority funding and Government funding—they rely on multiple streams of income. I plead with the Minister to make sure that the Government funding, at least, is secured beyond one year, so that these organisations have the reassurance during LGR that they will be able to maintain their provision in some sense.
We also need a statutory definition of honour-based abuse, and better training for police, social care and education professionals. In every police force, we need specialist violence against women and girls taskforces, and every force should undergo training via Naturewatch on the links between domestic abuse and the abuse of animals. Perpetrators of domestic abuse identify the special bond people build with their pets and can use that to exert control over partners or children. Across the country, we have seen cases where warning signs were missed, reports were ignored and opportunities to intervene were tragically lost. The programme run by Naturewatch has been taken up by police forces across the country, including the Metropolitan police and Sussex police, but we should encourage every force to take it on, as there is a direct link between the treatment of animals and domestic abuse. We must set up support services so that they are in the ideal position to listen to a child crying out for help, no matter how hard it is to hear them.
We in the Liberal Democrats are also extremely concerned by the chronic underfunding of children’s social care. After a decade of cuts to local authority budgets under Conservative Governments, many councils have been forced to scale back their early intervention services. I have been told by those working in the sector that they feel like they are firefighting every day, rather than spending the time they so desperately want to spend with the families they could prevent from entering crisis. Instead, they are dealing with mounting caseloads, burnout and an inability to resource their departments properly. This is short-sighted and dangerous. Tragically, too often, the consequences are felt too late.
The report into the heartbreaking case of Sara Sharif is a damning indictment of Surrey county council’s failure to protect a young girl from her abusers. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a passionate plea for the recommendations of the safeguarding review to be explored by the Government so that lessons can be learned nationally. Early support does prevent crises from escalating, it protects children who witness domestic abuse in their household, and it identifies risks at the earliest opportunity.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater integration between health and social care, with far more involvement from local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. This must include education settings, which play a vital role in identifying situations where abuse may be present. We need to ensure that training and support for teachers is readily available, so that they can spot the signs and call for help. Teachers have an increasingly challenging role in our complex environment: they are not only teachers but, quite often, caregivers and social workers. They may be the only lifeline that a child has, so they need to be able to spot the signs of domestic abuse, be they misbehaviour, withdrawal or a failure to engage in the classroom. In addition, as the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) mentioned, it is so important to have education campaigns so that children understand and can spot the signs of what is not a happy household, and understand what is normal and what is not, and what they should and should not put up with.
Another vital part of the picture is the family court system, which plays a key role in protecting children from situations where domestic abuse is present while also considering the importance of keeping families together. It is a desperately difficult job, yet there have been a number of situations where the system has failed and, frankly, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I thank the Government for their recent steps, including removing parental responsibility from those convicted of the most serious sexual offences, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood. Campaigners fought hard for that change, and it is welcome. Could we also consider removing parental responsibility from those on bail, to ensure that individuals capable of committing horrendous abuse are kept away from their children as early as possible?
With that in mind, what are the Government doing to integrate health and social care services across the country to ensure that as much protection as possible is provided for vulnerable children and families? What are the Government doing to raise awareness of the warning signs of a child living in a household with domestic abuse? When will we see further legislation to deal with the rising issues in our family court system? Will the Government consider specific measures to keep those on bail on charges of offences against children away from their children? The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that every child is protected, every survivor is heard and every perpetrator is held to account.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak on behalf of the Opposition in this debate on such an important issue, and I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing it.
This is an area in which Parliament must work with clarity, evidence and determination. The stakes are high. Almost all of us will work with constituents who have children affected by domestic abuse, and sadly many of us will have family or friends who have been affected. One in five children in the UK experiences domestic abuse, and almost four in five children living in homes with domestic abuse are directly harmed by the perpetrator, on top of the harm of witnessing the abuse. According to the National Centre for Domestic Violence, more than 105,000 children live in homes assessed as high risk. Those figures should focus minds across all parties.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West said, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was introduced by the previous Government. I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee for that genuinely groundbreaking legislation, which transformed the legal framework for tackling domestic abuse. The Act established a new statutory definition of domestic abuse in England and Wales, which recognises that abusive behaviour is not limited to physical violence but also includes emotional, controlling, coercive and economic abuse. As has been said, under section 3, children under 18 are explicitly recognised as victims if they see, hear, or experience the effects of, abuse against a related adult—for example, by witnessing abuse between their parents. Although abuse by or against children under 16 is treated under child protection law rather than domestic abuse laws, 16 to 18-year-olds may fall under both frameworks.
The statutory definition was designed to ensure that domestic abuse is understood across all statutory agencies, as well as by the public, as unacceptable. It also provides operational clarity for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in identifying and flagging domestic abuse cases, supported by Home Office statutory guidance.
The Conservative Government commissioned the independent review of children’s social care, the report of which was published in May 2022 and highlighted gaps in support for children affected by domestic abuse. I am pleased that, building on that, this Government have rolled out the Families First partnership programme, which integrates family help and multi-agency child protection teams. The teams include social workers, family support workers and domestic abuse specialists, promoting early intervention and tailored support.
The family courts are of course critical in safeguarding children where domestic abuse is involved, and the Conservative Government took several steps to address long-standing concerns. The 2020 report “Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases” identified systemic failures, including a pro-contact culture, siloed working, adversarial processes and insufficient recognition of abuse. Of course we all want parents to be able to see their children, but we do not want children to be used as weapons in relationship breakdowns. The welfare of children has to come first; that must be the priority.
In response to that report, barring orders were introduced under section 91A of the Children Act 1989 to prevent abusive parents from repeatedly returning to court. Pathfinder courts, piloted from March 2022, promote a much more investigative, child-focused approach, improving multi-agency collaboration, prioritising children’s voices and reducing conflict. I understand that the presumption of parental involvement is under review and is set to be repealed to ensure that child safety takes precedence. We obviously understand the reasons for that decision.
The tragic case of Sara Sharif, which hon. Members have referred to, demonstrates the consequence of the disconnect between law and practice. Despite children being recognised as victims in their own right, the review shows how gaps in co-ordination, oversight and early intervention can still leave a child without the protection that they need. The recent child safeguarding practice review into that murder exposed a series of systemic failings. The findings underline issues that were not isolated to one local authority, but reinforce the need for wider action.
A child cruelty register was first proposed by the Opposition during the Commons Committee stage of the Sentencing Bill. I thank the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for championing this issue so consistently and effectively. Although the amendment did not pass in the Commons, the concerns that it highlighted remain pressing, so the proposal must be examined again during the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place.
The case of Tony Hudgell is a clear example of why such a mechanism continues to require serious consideration. Tony was just 41 days old when he was so severely abused by his birth parents that both his legs were later required to be amputated. His abusers received sentences of 10 years, of which they will serve eight. Once their licence period ends, there will be no ongoing monitoring or reporting requirements, despite the seriousness of their offence.
We need a register to require individuals convicted of specified child cruelty offences, as well as those within the domestic abuse framework, to provide information to the police. That would allow that information to be retained and used to manage ongoing risk after the end of the formal sentence. It would operate in a similar way to the sex offenders register, and would ensure that offenders cannot evade oversight by changing identity, relocating or avoiding engagement with services. Evidence from police and practitioners shows that those who commit serious abuse often move across local authority boundaries or deliberately avoid contact with health and social care. A targeted, proportionate register could help to close a clear loophole in the system, and could increase our ability to protect and safeguard children’s welfare.
We support reforms that are practical, evidence-based and focused squarely on preventing harm. The priority must be to ensure that children are visible to the systems designed to protect them and that professionals have the tools, information and statutory backing they need to intervene early and effectively. We therefore support improved information-sharing duties with clear accountability. We support enhanced multi-agency working, including consistent national standards, and we argue for the introduction of a child cruelty register.
The Government recently announced that police and crime commissioner roles in England and Wales will be scrapped. That raises important questions about how continuity of support for victims, including children affected by domestic abuse, will be delivered during and after the transition. We would be grateful if the Government could confirm what measures they will put in place to ensure that the abolition of PCCs does not disrupt or weaken the support available to child victims of domestic abuse, and that existing services can continue to work seamlessly throughout the period of change. We must ensure that no child can disappear from view, and that known risks are managed effectively across agencies.
Protecting children from domestic abuse requires consistent professional curiosity, coherent information sharing and reliable oversight mechanisms. The cases of Sara Sharif and Tony Hudgell illustrate different aspects of system failure—failure that Parliament has a duty to address. I look forward to working across the House to strengthen the measures that will be brought before us and ensure that our child protection system meets the standards that the public expect and that our children deserve.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing a debate on this important subject. I thank all Members who contributed to this wide-ranging and incredibly sensitive and important debate; their contributions were outstanding. I also thank my hon. Friend’s constituent for sharing her story, which takes courage, and all those who shared personal stories.
I want to make absolutely clear how seriously I take the matters that have been raised today. Every child deserves to grow up in a home filled with love and safety, yet, as we have heard, for too many children a home that is meant to be a place of sanctuary can become a place of fear. It is the Government’s mission to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. The Ministry of Justice is working with partners across Government to strengthen protections for children from domestic abuse. Many of today’s questions and interventions touch on the need for not just cross-Government working, but working across multiple agencies and interaction between central and local government. It is critical that the whole system works together in the endeavour of stamping out domestic abuse and protecting children.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West says about our laws, reflecting the experience of children and young people who have suffered domestic abuse. He is, of course, right that we must ensure that those children, who are among the most vulnerable in society, are properly served and protected by the law. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), have mentioned the importance of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; I pay tribute to the previous Government for that legislation, which already recognises the profound impact that domestic abuse can have on children.
Section 3 of that Act makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of domestic abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse themselves. That is vital, because it makes it easier for children to access support such as mental health services. Looking more widely, the statutory guidance recently published by the Home Office on coercive and controlling behaviour clarifies that controlling or coercive behaviour has a significant impact on children and young people in relation to parental or other family member relationships. Taken together, those measures provide a clear recognition that abuse, even when it is not directed at them, can have a severe impact on a child. That is critical in underpinning the Government’s response to these crimes.
I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), who is a tireless champion on these issues. The murder of Sara Sharif is remembered with profound sadness. Although Sara’s father and stepmother are rightly serving life sentences for their appalling crimes, it is clear that the Government’s response to that tragedy cannot stop there. The local child safeguarding practice review into the case by Surrey Safeguarding Children Partnership is an important part of that process. The hon. Gentleman will understand the importance of considering the findings of that review with care and delicacy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has already begun to set out the detailed steps the Government are taking to strengthen safeguarding and to keep children safe. The hon. Member for Woking will know that some of those measures are making progress in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, such as obligations on local authorities to set up registers of children who are not educated in school and to consider the home environment when considering whether children should be permitted to be educated at home. I assure him and colleagues that we will continue to look at the recommendations of the review and identify ways to improve child protection in this country to mitigate the risk of such a tragic murder happening again, and I thank him for his tireless work in that regard.
Turning to the reform of the family justice system, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West rightly brings to our attention the many vulnerable children in the family court system who have been harmed or are at risk of being harmed by domestic abuse. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who raised important points on family courts. As others have said, family judges and family courts have a very difficult job to do and for the most part do that job well—but no child should miss out on the chance of a safe and stable childhood because the system is too slow or complicated, or does not provide the right help at the right time. The Government are acting to make sure that when families struggle, the services around them respond with compassion, speed and fairness.
At the heart of our family justice strategy is putting children first. That means making sure that their voices are centred and their safety is protected, and that decisions are focused on giving them the best possible chance to grow up in a stable and supportive home. I am pleased to hear others welcome the Government’s announcement on the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement; I recognise that many Members and the people they represent have been campaigning for that for a very long time.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood in paying tribute to the incredibly brave work, for some 11 years now, of Claire Throssell to vindicate the legacy of her sons Jack and Paul, who were murdered. Claire’s story is a heartbreaking reminder of what is at stake when the system fails children. Her courage and tireless campaigning demonstrate the need for the family courts to protect children from abuse. It has been an honour getting to know Claire, and I hope that this change in our law will mark a culture change in our family courts.
Of course, achieving that culture change is not just about the presumption, and it is important to recognise the centrality of the welfare checklist in the Children’s Act 1989. That looks at the wishes and feelings of the child concerned, the impact on the child of any changes in circumstances, how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs, and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, which could include any harm from witnessing domestic abuse.
As well as those changes in the law, we are not stopping at that announcement. As a Government, we have chosen to continue to build on the excellent results of the pathfinder model in private law children’s proceedings to improve the experiences and outcomes for all survivors of domestic abuse, including children. That work built on the findings of the harm panel report, and the feedback we have had from practitioners, and particularly from children and parents, is that they feel better heard and supported under this new approach. Alongside that, referrals to independent domestic violence advisers for a risk assessment, and better join-up between the court and local authorities and police, give the court a clearer assessment of the risk to children when they are making decisions.
Pathfinder courts are already operating across Wales, Dorset, Birmingham, West Yorkshire, Wolverhampton, Stoke-on-Trent and Worcester, and we want to go further. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West will be delighted to hear that pathfinder courts will commence on the Isle of Wight in January 2026, and we hope that that will make a real difference.
I want to pick up on the points made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to Jade’s law and parental responsibility. We are working with partners across the criminal and family justice system to implement Jade’s law, which would provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent has killed the other. We are currently working through the details of implementation with a wide range of family justice stakeholders. The mechanism is novel and it is important that we take the time to get it right.
Hon. Members will know that we are going further as part of the Victims and Courts Bill. That Bill includes two critical measures: first, we will restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment for serious sexual abuse against a child, and secondly, we will ensure that, where a perpetrator is sentenced for rape and that crime has led to the birth of a child, they will have their parental responsibility for that child restricted from the moment they are sentenced. I appreciate that that does not go as far as the hon. Member for Chichester urged, but these are novel pieces of law, and we need to see how they operate before going further. I feel assured that, taken together, the measures will protect thousands of children, ensuring that perpetrators who have committed some of the most serious crimes cannot continue to insert themselves into children’s lives and seek to exercise their parental responsibility from prison.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), asked about spending on domestic abuse specialist services. I echo the comments made by hon. Members about the importance of charitable and third sector services in that regard. We know the sterling work that those services do, and that they fill a gap all too often left by shortcomings in state support. I pay tribute to them, but it is not right that they work in an environment where they have to pick up so many of the pieces, so investment in specialist services and in child protection is important.
The Department for Education is rolling out the Families First partnership programme—which will be important—with an investment of £541 million in ’25-26. It will give families and children access to better local support services to enable earlier intervention, which we know is so important to enable families to stay together, where it is safe to do so. The Department for Education is also developing post-qualifying standards and social work induction to further strengthen early career support. That will help improve the quality of practice, and the retention of children and families social workers. We expect that domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, will feature prominently in the new programme. That work is coupled across Government with a £5.3 million investment by the Home Office into community-based support for children affected by domestic abuse.
I reassure hon. Members that the announced abolition of PCCs will not disrupt the provision of those community-based services. The structure may change, but the support and the investment in that support will not. In response to the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, I note that the Government are committed to consulting on the establishment of a child protection authority before the end of this year.
Finally, I note the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire about the campaign by the shadow Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—which she makes on behalf of her constituent and Tony Hudgell—for a child risk register. The Government have heard that case loud and clear; while we were not able to support a specific amendment in the Commons, we are considering it with great care because we recognise that there is a gap there.
All of us, as I have heard this afternoon, share a deep commitment to safeguarding children and ensuring that they are fully protected and supported. That is why we will continue to work with partners across Government, with frontline agencies, with the courts and with third sector groups to protect children affected by the scourge of domestic abuse. I hope my remarks have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West, and all hon. Members who have made such thoughtful and sensitive contributions to the debate, that we have a legislative framework in place that recognises the impact that domestic abuse has on children, and that Departments across Government are taking action to make sure that the right support, help and protection is in place for them. We need to keep doing that, and I know that everybody here will continue to hold us to account, and to push us to go further and do better.
I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protect children, support victims and ensure that abusers are held accountable. Quite simply, all children deserve to grow up free from fear and abuse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West again for securing a debate on such an important subject.
Mr Quigley
I sincerely thank the Minister for her response, for the steps that have already been taken by this Government to protect children from domestic abuse, and for the commencement of the Pathfinder programme in 2026 on the Isle of Wight. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
As Women’s Aid reminds us, children do not just passively witness abuse; they absorb it. It becomes a weight that they carry every day, following them into school, into their friendships and, most damagingly, into adulthood. One survivor told me that, as a child, their Friday afternoons at school were not spent counting down to the weekend, like other kids; instead, they were silently begging the clock to slow down, dreading the moment they would have to go home and hoping that Monday would come back round quickly.
Some 50% of young people who access our child and adolescent mental health services say that they have witnessed domestic abuse. There is a clear moral and economic case to get this issue right. Women’s Aid estimates that support from specialist domestic abuse services can save the NHS well over £150,000 per survivor, which includes the cost of visits to A&E, hospital treatment and appointments with GPs and other professionals. Protecting children from domestic abuse is about not just safeguarding their present, but securing their future. Every child deserves a home that feels safe, not one that they fear to return to. Let us make sure that no child is left silently begging the clock to slow down.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting children from domestic abuse.
Contingent Liability Guarantee: SEFE
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I wish to make Members aware of the details of a contingent liability guarantee, which will be entered into in favour of SEFE, in accordance with and pursuant to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, to support British Steel Ltd, and for the purpose of securing the continued and safe use of blast furnace operation in Scunthorpe.
The guarantee will replace the existing credit support, be of the same value, is a policy requirement for SEFE, and would be in respect of British Steel Ltd’s payment obligations to SEFE. Without such guarantee, SEFE would not extend the underlying supply contract with British Steel Ltd, leaving British Steel Ltd unable to access a key supply, or British Steel Ltd would only be able to do so on materially worse terms.
The terms of the guarantee ensure that the impact to the public purse is reduced. The guarantee may be terminated by the Department by providing SEFE with 10 business days’ written notice. The effective date of the guarantee is 31 March 2026.
Authority for any expenditure required under this liability will be sought through the normal procedure. I will lay a departmental minute before Parliament today, containing a description of the liability undertaken.
If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days, a member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS1102]
Defence Estate Security Review
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
Further to the Minister for the Armed Forces’ statement of 8 September (HCWS913), I am providing a further update on the measures we continue to take to enhance and improve security across the defence estate.
As we set out previously, after many years of under-investment and hollowing out under the previous Administration, we have identified the physical security of our sites as an area in need of greater focus. The Department is using in-year funding to deliver physical security enhancements, focusing on high priority sites across the defence estate. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards of security to safeguard our national defence capabilities.
Since we last updated the House, we have maintained our posture of enhanced vigilance and continue to strengthen our security culture. Our updated guidance and reinforcing messaging applies to all those working on our estate, including our contractors. We have made it easier for defence personnel and industry partners to report suspected security incidents.
In respect of our airbases, the Royal Air Force has made significant progress in strengthening security through advanced technical enhancements, now operational at multiple main operating bases. These enhancements provide a robust layer of protection at our most critical sites. A key innovation is the use of cutting-edge technology through the immediate threat mitigation solution—a self-contained CCTV system designed to detect, track and deter unauthorised access.
This technical innovation strengthens physical security measures. At RAF Brize Norton, for instance, the upgraded automated track-and-detect system monitors specific areas and feeds into a central control room which is monitored 24/7, enabling faster decision making and improving the Military Provost Guard Service’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to incidents. In addition, engagement with local landowners and Thames Valley police is strengthening suspicious activity reporting.
Together, these steps ensure technology and our workforce operate in tandem as part of a layered security approach, with lessons learned being rolled out across the defence estate.
We will also be piloting restricted airspace above 40 strategic sites across the defence estate, a precursor to wider implementation in 2026, reinforcing existing national security act legislation. This will aid the enforcement of the National Security Act prohibited place legislation and assist with identifying malicious and unlawful activity. We are significantly investing in remote piloted aerial systems, a drone capability that provides persistent surveillance and patrolling to help deter threats and identify them when they arise. This equipment has been procured and personnel are beginning training shortly.
We have taken decisive steps to improve recruitment across MOD Police, MOD Guard Service, Military Provost Guard Service, and Security Services Group. Recent financial incentive campaigns for the Military Provost Guard Service have been a success and we will consider similar campaigns where appropriate. Other steps include more targeted approaches to advertising and improved candidate engagement.
Looking further ahead, improvements through the implementation of the strategic defence review will address the chronic under-investment in the security of the defence estate this Government inherited and improve the assurance of security and resilience risk management that this Government inherited. The £20 million for digital transformation of our security, which the Minister for the Armed Forces announced in her statement to the House on 8 September, is being invested in three flagship systems to modernise defence security. These include MOD adoption of the critical national infrastructure knowledge base, a new enterprise incident case management system, and a real-time physical security assurance platform.
Ensuring the safety and security of the defence estate continues to be a key priority. We are focused on improving physical security, taking advantage of technological advancements and reinforcing our workforce to ensure that we deliver. And all those who seek to threaten the security of our bases should be in no doubt that we will use all the levers at our disposal to take swift action wherever and whenever that occurs. The Department will not hesitate to pursue prosecution where criminality is suspected.
[HCWS1103]
Nigeria
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa (the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:
I am writing to update the House on recent abductions in Nigeria, and the UK’s ongoing security partnership with Nigeria.
In the last week, Nigeria has faced a further series of abhorrent abductions from schools and churches, including the attack on St Mary’s catholic school in Niger state, which is one of the largest recorded mass abductions in the country’s history. These crimes are intolerable. Everyone should be safe to exercise their fundamental human rights to education and freedom of worship. The UK stands firmly with the people and Government of Nigeria during this difficult time, and of course with the families of those children who have been abducted.
As a valued Commonwealth friend, we are working closely with our Nigerian partners as they respond to these incidents, and welcome the efforts to date to secure releases of schoolgirls in Kebbi state and worshippers in Kwara state. One year on from the signing of the UK-Nigeria strategic partnership in November 2024, which includes our security and defence partnership as a key pillar, our co-operation continues to strengthen security and prosperity. This includes assisting the Nigerian Government to establish a dedicated unit, the multi-agency kidnap fusion cell, which brings together Nigeria’s police, military and justice agencies to rescue victims and bring perpetrators to justice.
The safety of school children is paramount. UK education funding has supported school safety improvements including through the “Partnership for Learning for All in Nigeria Education” programme. In March 2025, with UK support, a safe school rapid response co-ordination centre was launched in Jigawa state, providing training and deployment of security personnel to public schools.
Abductions and kidnap for ransom remain a prevalent issue across Nigeria. Across the country, insecurity continues to devastate communities and severely impact ordinary people, driving displacement, heightening protection risks and eroding livelihoods. In the north-east, terrorist groups including Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa have indiscriminately killed individuals not just from Christian but also from Muslim communities. In the north-west and north-central, criminal bandits are primarily targeting communities for profit and ransom.
This Government are committed to strengthening our security and defence partnership with Nigeria to address the roots of insecurity. In my meeting with Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Yusuf Tuggar, on 11 November, we discussed the security situation in Nigeria and issues relating to freedom of religion or belief, and the Foreign Secretary also discussed with him on 10 November the ongoing importance of UK-Nigeria security co-operation.
Through our security and defence partnership, we are helping to build capacity within Nigeria’s security agencies to effectively undertake counter-terrorism operations, investigations and intelligence analysis to prevent future attacks. Our “Strengthening Peace and Resilience in Nigeria” programme is working with Nigerian partners to address the root causes of intercommunal conflict, support collaboration and productive livelihoods for farmers and pastoralists and strengthen conflict early warning and response systems.
Through our strategic partnership, this Government remain committed to working with the Government of Nigeria to tackle insecurity in all its forms.
We will continue to express our solidarity with the people of Nigeria, to express our condemnation of these abhorrent abductions, and to stand up for freedom of religion or belief both in Nigeria, and throughout the world. We join the Government of Nigeria in calling for the safe return of all those who have been kidnapped, and call for all perpetrators to be brought to justice.
[HCWS1105]
Reforming Local Plan Making
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Following my written statement concerning local plan making and guidance—[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 62WS.]—I am today providing an update on the implementation of our reforms to the plan-making system in England.
This Government were elected on a manifesto that included a clear commitment to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament, and all areas are required to play their part. In order to deliver the homes and growth that the country needs, we expect all local planning authorities to make every effort to get up-to-date local plans in place as soon as possible.
The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. In the absence of an up-to-date plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. It is for these reasons that the level of up-to-date plan coverage we inherited is so problematic.
As a Government, we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal local plan coverage. To that end, we have been clear that we intend to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible. That is why we introduced transitional arrangements for emerging plans in preparation as part of the changes we made to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and why we have recently awarded over £29 million in funding to 188 local planning authorities to support the rapid preparation of plans that reflect that updated framework.
However, the current system is optimised neither for speed, nor for community participation. The Government are therefore clear that more fundamental reform to the system is needed, to ensure that local plans are faster to prepare and simpler for end users to access and understand.
In February, we published the Government’s response to the previous Government’s consultation on implementation of plan-making reforms. I am today publishing more detailed information about the design of the legislation required to implement the new system; how we intend to roll it out across the country, and the resources that will be made available to support plan makers to that end.
Designing and implementing new plan-making regulations
We will shortly lay the regulations that will underpin our new approach to plan making. These will reflect our February 2025 response to the previous Government’s consultation on the new plan-making system, and their development has taken into account responses to that consultation, as well as feedback provided through extensive engagement with the sector.
The regulations will set out a new process for producing plans, with clear steps that a local planning authority will need to take. This should support faster preparation of plans and more frequent updates, in line with our aim of universal coverage of up-to-date plans that reflect local needs.
The Government are today publishing a summary of what we intend these regulations to contain. This will provide plan makers and other key stakeholders with the information they need to familiarise themselves with the new system in advance of it coming into force early next year.
Rolling out the new plan-making system
The Government are acutely aware that many local planning authorities are keen to start work on plans in the new system at the earliest opportunity, to give themselves the best possible chance of success and provide much-needed certainty for their communities.
Having considered carefully responses to the earlier consultation, I am announcing today that we no longer intend to roll the system out in a series of plan-making waves. Instead, local planning authorities will be encouraged to bring plans forward as soon as possible following the commencement of the regulations early in the new year.
While authorities will have discretion over how soon they start their plan, regulations will set out final backstop dates for when plan-making must legally have commenced. Local planning authorities covered by the NPPF transitional arrangements will have to commence formal plan making (gateway 1) by 31 October 2026, while those that have a plan that is already over five years old must commence by 30 April 2027. Further information will be set out in the regulations and in guidance.
We will provide a minimum of £14 million of funding this financial year to support local plan making. This is to help local planning authorities get ambitious plans in place as soon as possible and to support those starting work on a new plan early in the new plan-making system. Further details will be published shortly.
Guidance and tools to support local authorities
In February 2025 we launched a new home for local plan-making resources on gov.uk— https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/create-or-update-a-local-plan
This is already supporting plan makers. Today we are going further by publishing, in draft, the first dedicated guidance and tools to support plan makers bringing forward a local plan in the new system.
For this initial release we have prioritised resources that can best support plan makers in the earliest stages of plan-making, aiding their understanding of how the new system will work and what they could focus on now to get ready. Additional practical tools and templates have been provided by the Planning Advisory Service, which will further support plan makers with their preparations. These resources form part of a growing digital offer to support plan makers to deliver local plans faster. It will be followed by the timely release of tools and services both this year and beyond.
Plan making in the current system
The Government have been clear that they want local planning authorities to continue bringing forward plans as quickly as possible ahead of the new system coming into force. For plans progressing to adoption under the existing plan-making legal framework, we will be setting out in the aforementioned regulations that the final date for submission for examination will be 31 December 2026.
As set out in the revised NPPF published on 12 December 2024, local plans that reached regulation 19 stage on or before 12 March and needed updating as they were meeting less than 80% of local housing need, are expected to be updated and submitted by 12 June 2026, unless updating the plan required the authority to return to regulation 18. If this was the case, authorities have until 31 December 2026 to reach submission.
The Government are committed to taking tough action to ensure that local authorities have up-to-date local plans in place. While we hope the need will not arise, we have made it clear that we are willing to make full use of available intervention powers—including taking over a local authority’s plan making directly—if local plans are not progressed as required.
Duty to co-operate
The new plan-making system provided by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 does not include the duty to co-operate that was inserted into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 through the Localism Act 2011 to help bridge the gap in cross-boundary co-operation resulting from the abolition of regional planning. Instead, the new system will rely on revised national policy and the new tier of strategic planning to ensure effective co-operation between plan-making authorities.
The regulations for the new system will also save the current plan-making system for a period to allow emerging plans to progress to examination by 31 December 2026. Given the above, and to help drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible and progress towards our objective of universal local plan coverage, we have decided not to “save” the duty, thereby removing this requirement for plans in the current system.
Local planning authorities should continue to collaborate across their boundaries, including on unmet development needs from neighbouring areas, and we expect planning inspectors to continue to examine plans in line with the policies in the NPPF on maintaining effective co-operation. I have written to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate to ask that these matters are made clear to local plan inspectors.
[HCWS1104]
Budget: Small and Medium-sized Businesses
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the Budget on small and medium-sized businesses.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday’s Budget rejects austerity, instead building a strong and secure economy—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It does this by cutting the cost of living and reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting government borrowing every year so interest rates keep falling. For small and medium-sized businesses, the Budget supports high streets with permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 retail and hospitality properties, backs entrepreneurs by doubling eligibility for tax breaks that make it easier for fast-growing start-ups to scale and stay in the UK, makes the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for SMEs and maintains the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, yesterday was the benefits Budget. The Chancellor has broken her promise not to increase income taxes. As she said in her Budget, because no national insurance is charged on dividend income, she will increase the income tax on dividends. Does the Minister think that she understands that national insurance is on employed income, for which an employee is paid a risk-free salary, but SME dividends are the reward paid to people who take a risk and invest in their own business to help the business grow? For some reason—perhaps he can explain—she failed to put national insurance on the huge incomes of lawyers and others in LLPs. Does he share my concern, and that of many others in the UK, that she has no understanding whatever of basic economic principles such that she does not understand the difference between salary and dividends that SMEs get for return on capital?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Unsurprisingly, no, I do not agree with the noble Lord. He will remember that, in the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion. The Government are taking action to ensure income from assets is taxed fairly, narrowing the gap between taxes paid on work and tax paid on income from assets. Those with dividend income pay considerably less tax than those whose income comes from employment or self-employment, as they do not pay national insurance contributions. It is not fair that the tax system treats different types of income so differently, so tax on dividend income will increase by two percentage points. Over 90% of UK taxpayers do not pay dividend tax.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, we know the vital role that the start-up community, and innovation within it, plays in our economy and its future growth. Would my noble friend talk a little bit more about what the Chancellor did yesterday to help that sector with its scale and stay agenda? Also, declaring an interest as a member of the London Partnership Board, and perhaps playing the Millwall card, may I ask my noble friend to acknowledge the role that London is playing in bearing a share of the burden again that is perhaps disproportionate?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he says about the action we took to help scale-up businesses in the UK. As many noble Lords will know, the UK is already a great place to start a business, but our companies are not scaling at the same rate as their US peers and raising less at later-stage investment. As a result, UK companies are either acquired, fail, or choose to go abroad to raise that investment. We will change that and make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth. We are doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in public capital and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of the UK markets, making sure that those companies can access the capital and the talent that they need to succeed in the long term.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister and I will agree that the best way of helping businesses of all sizes is for there to be growth—meaningful growth—over the period. Given the words of the OBR boss, Richard Hughes, this morning on the “Today” programme that none of the measures in this Budget will lead to growth, it is very clear that the OBR does not rate the trade deals, investments in Heathrow or any of the measures as delivering growth over the period covered by the Budget. Where will the growth come from?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusion as the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their growth forecasts. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. He is right that the OBR has looked back at the previous decade and concluded that policies such as austerity and Brexit have weakened the economy more than previously thought, and that assessment then directly impacts its view of GDP for the remainder of the forecast period, but the past does not have to determine the future, and we will go further and faster with our growth mission. We are cutting inflation and cutting borrowing every year of the forecast so that interest rates can keep falling, giving businesses the confidence to invest; we are maintaining public investment to build critical infrastructure; and we are backing our fastest-growing companies. We beat the growth forecasts this year, and we will beat them again.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Well, it is goodbye Budgets for growth and hello tax and spend, is it not? When Ministers are forced back just to reading scripts—completely unedited, as far as I can tell—we get a gist of the sense of lack of authority behind some of the remarks that have just been made. Budgets used to have detailed studies of incentive effects attached to them. Could the Minister tell us, and publish, any such studies of the incentive effects on small business growth for the tax measures in this Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord was characteristically rude, but I will resist being rude back to him. There were very many measures—
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Could the Minister possibly say where I have been rude?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There were several measures to help businesses scale up. The enterprise management incentive scheme will be significantly expanded and made available to more companies. Enterprise investment scheme investment limits and gross asset thresholds will be doubled, and venture capital trust investment limits and gross assets thresholds will also be doubled. The Government will obviously publish impact assessments for all those measures.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is the turn of the Labour Party.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the news of free apprenticeships for under 25s in small and medium-sized enterprises. This is good news for young people and businesses. What impact does the Minister think it will have on the number of people coming into apprenticeships in those arenas?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for what we announced yesterday in terms of apprenticeships. We are investing £1.5 billion over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support, including £725 million for the growth and skills levy to help support apprenticeships for young people and to fully fund SME apprenticeships for under-25s. We will also introduce new reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient when short courses are introduced from April 2026.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as someone who champions SMEs and regularly has my amendments rejected by the Government, I welcome some of what the Minister has set out. It will, however, be offset by the increase in dividend tax, which has been mentioned, and the negative effect of wider tax increases. Our main disappointment with the Budget, as has already been said, is the disappearance of growth as the principal objective, with no significant positive impact by 2030 according to the OBR. Does he agree that this neglect is particularly bad for SMEs, and can he answer the two questions on the overall impact of the Budget on SMEs now?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. No, I do not accept that the Budget is bad overall for growth and for SMEs. As I have said, the OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%. The noble Baroness’s policy of going back to austerity and cutting spending by £47 billion would be exactly the wrong thing to do at this point for growth. We need to maintain investment in our economy. In this Budget, we are cutting inflation, cutting borrowing every year of the forecast and keeping interest rates down. We are maintaining higher levels of public investment for decades, building houses, roads, railways and energy infrastructure, and backing our fastest-growing companies. She mentioned growth. She may have seen this morning that JP Morgan, the global investment bank, announced a $10 billion investment in the UK with its intention to build its new landmark tower in London. Jamie Dimon, the CEO, said:
“The UK Government's priority of economic growth has been a critical factor in helping us make this decision”.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
If the Government are supporting scale-ups and start-ups, what do they think about the fact that every single start-up and scale-up, even those very successful at fundraising, has been eliminated from the Department for Transport’s recent procurement framework and that they were asked to provide indemnities if they were to participate? How does that measure up with HMT asking regulators and the private sector to take more risk and not doing so itself? How do they get value out of the investment that they are putting in if it is not followed up with routes to revenue?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of procurement to scale-up firms; I completely agree with her on that point. As part of the announcements that we made yesterday, we said that the Government will act as a better early customer to help UK firms prove commercial potential, including through a new innovation marketplace to fast-track strategically important firms into public procurement.
Violence Against Women and Girls
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the prevalence of violence against women and girls in line with the Labour Party Manifesto 2024 commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The work to halve violence against women and girls in a decade started the day the Government entered office, and I pay tribute to my colleague Jess Phillips for her work in this area. The Government have already announced a series of cross-government measures, including a £13.1 million investment in the creation of a national policing centre for violence against women and girls, and measures to tackle specific crime types, including honour-based abuse, spiking and stalking. Our cross-government strategy approach underpinning a new strategy will be published as soon as possible.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I am so pleased that our Government have this policy. On the commitments in the manifesto, will he say what action is being taken to ensure that schools address misogyny so that boys and girls are being taught about healthy relationships and consent? What progress is being made on introducing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms so that victims can talk directly to a specialist, and on ensuring that there is a legal advocate in every police force area to advise victims from the moment of report to trial? What progress is being made on having specialist rape and sexual offence teams in every police force and on fast-tracking rape cases with specialist courts in every Crown Court in England and Wales?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have made progress on all three of those objectives. The Department for Education and my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern have published an updated curriculum this year, which includes teaching online safety and awareness of healthy relationships. We have already introduced domestic abuse specialists in the first five police forces under what we call Raneem’s law, and we will expand the rollout to more police forces very shortly, as soon as possible. We are also working with key stakeholders on the delivery of legal advocates, and we are hoping to make further announcements on that very shortly.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I welcome the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls, but we need to see concrete action to achieve that goal. Female genital mutilation causes immediate and long-term harm and is a crime that is underreported and underprosecuted. The Home Office concluded a feasibility study in 2024 on how to produce robust prevalence estimates for FGM. Back in March, the Minister said that the Government were considering the next step, so can I ask for an update on that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for both her commitment and her continued pressure on the Government on these issues. As she knows, in August this year the Home Office announced six new measures to tackle honour-based abuse. One of those measures is to conduct a pilot prevalence study to support the development of a national prevalence estimate for forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and that will build on the work of the feasibility study that concluded in 2024. Work is already under way now on that issue, and I hope to update the House in due course.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle and reduce domestic violence, but the number of victims has not come down over the years, sadly, and too many perpetrators—overwhelmingly men and particularly in some communities—do not appear to understand that these are criminal offences. Does the Minister accept that we need a widespread public awareness and information campaign to help inform victims and their families of their rights, the law and where they can get help, alongside embedding more education on healthy relationships in schools, and enforcement such as the stepping up of the use of domestic abuse orders?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. As I have mentioned in answer to earlier questions, the Department for Education has now issued curriculum reviews on the issue of health and education. Indeed, I understand that new guidance has been issued on this issue. She is right that we need to make sure that there is not just greater awareness but zero tolerance. The expected violence against women and girls strategy, which I am hoping will be published very shortly, will cover a range of issues that the noble Baroness has mentioned, and I look forward to that contributing to the Government’s measurable objective of reducing violence against women and girls significantly, as per the manifesto commitment.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to address online harassment and technology-facilitated abuse directed against women and girls?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is extremely important, and there is the potential for the Government to examine how that is undertaken. Harassment and misogyny, the issues that my noble friend has mentioned, are subject to tight regulation and tight legislation as a whole. We also need to work with the technology companies to ensure that, under the Online Safety Act, information put online that is offensive and which breaches the legislation is taken down speedily.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
I want to press my friend the Minister a little further on police training. I know that it is much better than it was, but it is still a postcode lottery and I do not think the police always understand the different kinds of abuse, particularly honour abuse. It is important that policemen on the beat are aware and know what to do if someone approaches them. That is quite often the first time that a victim has felt able or free to see someone, and it is important that the officers know immediately what to do and can take that person to a place of safety.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a valuable point. It is important that we have police officers who understand the impact of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, since, as she mentioned, often they are the first port of call. I hope that the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy—I say again to the House that we hope to publish it in very short order—will cover a range of issues about how we can raise awareness and have a full policing response, as well as further potential government responses.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the CPS has published its Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy 2025-2030, and indeed the previous Government published their violence against women and girls strategy in 2021, but I am unable to find the current Government’s strategy. Can the Minister help me with this?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can. I think I have already said it to the House, but I will give the noble Lord the latest. On 17 November the Minister responsible for this in another place, Jess Phillips, said during Home Office Orals that the strategy would be coming out very soon but that we are already taking action. I give this assurance to the House: when I say very soon, I mean very soon. I hope noble Lords will recognise that when it does, very soonly, they will know that I said that the violence against women and girls strategy would come out “very soon”. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
One of the problems at the moment is online images of what it is to be a young man—distorted images that imply that to be a young man is to be misogynistic, carrying with them assumptions of implicit violence. What are the current Government doing online to counteract these false, distorted images of what it is to be a man?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I find it quite upsetting to see some of the images and messages that are put out from people who, in some cases, currently face criminal charges in other countries. It is important that, through the work that my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern is doing, we work with schools and communities to ensure that young men in particular respect everyone in society, and that they are not taken down some of the very false routes that currently appear on much of social media.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, what is the timescale for the independent commission on grooming gangs in terms of appointing a chair, publishing the terms of reference, and so on? Is there any urgency there? Secondly, as these rape gangs are arguably the most shameful examples of state indifference to, even collusion with, the sexual abuse of thousands and thousands of young white working-class girls, does the Minister understand that delays and excuses imply that the commitment regarding violence against women and girls can come over rather cynically—as just a slogan rather than action?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that it is not a slogan; it is a manifesto commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period as a matter of some urgency. She will know that we have been trying to recruit a chair for the national grooming inquiry over many weeks, and we are still trying to do that. The anticipation is that we will, I hope, achieve that as quickly as possible. We have enabled a Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to assist us in that recruitment, and this very afternoon we will have debates in this House on the Crime and Policing Bill on those issues. It is the Government’s intention to establish the inquiry as soon as possible, and I will keep this House updated.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this feels like an appropriate moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale, who has worked so hard on this issue for so long, and to remember the friend of this whole House, the late, great Baroness Newlove. What are the Government doing to ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner is involved in the consultation and development of the strategy, and will the new commissioner be properly resourced to help to implement it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the recognition of my noble friend Lady Gale. I looked this up today, and she was asking me questions about this issue in this very week last year, so she is not one not to be persistent on the same issues. I also pay tribute to the late Baroness Newlove for her work as Victims’ Commissioner. My noble friend will know that the Victims’ Commissioner had already been replaced from January next year. Self-evidently, we are hoping to produce the violence against women and girls strategy very shortly, but I will ensure that the new Victims’ Commissioner both examines the potential future government strategy and is involved in its challenge and its delivery.
Equality Act 2010: Supreme Court Judgment
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government which departments have been involved in considering the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice on implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Services, Public Functions and Associations: Code of Practice provides guidance on all protected characteristics, not solely sex and gender reassignment. As the sponsoring body, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is responsible for providing advice to Ministers on the code. Other government departments have been consulted as required on specific elements of the code.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer; it was a fairly simple Question. But does my noble friend understand that the delay and constant difficulty in giving straight answers to questions about the guidance gives the strong impression that the Government are being held to ransom by a tightly knit group of politically motivated Peers and MPs who do not accept the Supreme Court judgment, as stated by the rule of law? One is entitled to ask: where has the rule of law gone?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I do not recognise that because it is not true. Any suggestion that the Government are delaying the code is both totally inaccurate and unhelpful. This is a long and complex document, and we are carefully considering it. Frankly, it would be catastrophic for single-sex services, which have always been supported by this Government and this party, to implement guidance that was not legally sound, which would then place them in legal jeopardy again. That is why it is vital that we get this right. We have always been clear that the proper process needs to be followed, which includes understanding the potential impact on businesses, public functions and services. Understanding impacts is a routine and regular aspect of decision-making; it is not a delaying tactic.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that the law is as determined by the Supreme Court judgment? Any code of practice is guidance.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, I am very happy to confirm that, as has been the Prime Minister. To be clear, the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the For Women Scotland case is clear; both inside and outside government, we expect it to be followed and, where necessary, people to seek specialist legal advice to enable them to do that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, on costs, what assessment has been made of the potential cost implications for employers and public bodies? How are the Government ensuring that the code does not inadvertently require expensive or disproportionate changes to facilities or service delivery?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not believe that it will, but understanding costs is of course a routine and regular aspect of decision-making, as I suggested. This is a long and legally complex document that will have an impact on service providers up and down the country. Rightfully, we are carefully considering it and have asked the EHRC not to carry out a full regulatory impact assessment but, rather, to help by providing information on costs to ensure that a full impact assessment is not required, so that Ministers can take a fully informed decision.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I declare for the final time an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that this is my final intervention on this matter, but I want to explain for the information of the House the important point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Minister. It is simply that the code was provided to government on 8 April, before the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Supreme Court ruling, only 10% of the code has changed. It is coming up to eight months since 90% of the code was reviewed by the Government, and they responded with suggestions to those different protected characteristics and aspects. It is only that 10% which has been with the Government since 4 September.
Finally, the Minister makes an important point about the costs of the regulatory impact. The bottom line is that since this is the law of the land, the impact of costs will be far higher if we litigate through the courts case by case, public body by public body, and duty bearer by duty bearer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I wholly agree with the noble Baroness on her last point, which is precisely why it is important that we consider the code appropriately, as laid out in law in the Equality Act 2006. She is right that, as I outlined, the code covers more than the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment. But it was on 4 September that the updated code, post the For Women Scotland case, was submitted to the Government. For the reasons I have outlined, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to take the time to consider this appropriately and to consider, as they are expected to do by the burdens process put in place by the previous Government, the potential impact of that on providers, and for us to work to do so in a way that will safeguard providers in protecting all the protected characteristics that the code—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have not finished yet. In concluding, I take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her work in leading the EHRC. I suspect that this will not be the last time she asks questions about this issue in this House, and nor should it be.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from Labour and then from the Tories.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
As the Whip for the Equality Act 2010, can my noble friend the Minister clarify the next steps in the statutory process and how the Government will ensure that, when the code returns to Parliament, it will be legally sound, proportionate and practical for those who will implement it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not only for that question but for her history of work in the area she outlined. As I suggested earlier, there is no benefit to anybody, particularly those who most need the clarity that application of the code can bring—for example, to lawfully provide single-sex spaces for women—to sidetrack the correct and careful process the Government are following. The Government are following the process for laying the code in Parliament set out in the Equality Act 2006. The Minister for Women and Equalities is considering the EHRC’s updated draft code, as I have already outlined, and if the decision is taken to approve it, she will lay it before both Houses over a 40-day period, as per the process set out in Section 14 of the Equality Act 2006.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, on 5 November the Minister was asked this by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick:
“Does the Minister agree that, today, it is the obligation of all persons, whether private or public, to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether they agree with it or not, and without waiting for guidance?”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1926.]
She helpfully responded by saying, “I do agree”, so the Government have said they support the Supreme Court’s ruling, yet the EHRC’s updated guidance reflecting that ruling has sat with Ministers for almost three months. Can I push the Minister a little more to say when it will be published? Every week of delay fuels confusion over a legally settled issue and leaves service providers without the clarity they need. Will it be one month, three months, six months; or, even better, will it be very soon?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It will be at the point at which we have fulfilled the process that I have outlined to the House today. It will be at the point at which we can all be confident that what we provide in clarifying the application of the law will support providers in delivering for all those with protected characteristics, which is of course the role of the code. But the noble Baroness is right: I was clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the clarity of the law and the requirement for all to be following it at this point. That is the position taken by the Prime Minister in the last week, and that is what everybody should be doing.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the current unclarity arises not from the judgment of the Supreme Court but from the rushed and muddled unclarity of the code provided by the EHRC? Does she agree that we must now make sure that we do not inadvertently create an undefined third category, who could be difficult for providers to deal with?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The theme of my responses today to the questions asked is precisely to try to follow the legal and correct process here, and to avoid legal uncertainty for providers in the application of the law and the use of the code in doing that. It serves nobody—it serves none of the people whom those in this House and more broadly understandably feel passionate about—if this Government are rushed by political considerations into publishing a code which will not do the job it needs to do for the most vulnerable people. That is at the heart of the process we are following, and at the heart of our commitment to serving those people.
Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham)
We welcome and endorse the report and accept the principle of the recommendations it has set out. We will present a full implementation plan within three months. The task force will be engaged in the implementation phase to review progress and support delivery. We will complete implementation within two years, subject to legislative timelines on elements requiring primary legislation. We have already met the first recommendation with the publication of the Prime Minister’s strategic steer.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that the Fingleton report makes it clear that government indecision and flawed legislation are largely to blame for nuclear regulatory failure. As part of this programme going forward, I think all sides of the House would agree we need to move forward expeditiously on nuclear. Can the Minister give some specific recommendations around how the Government will approach the new SMR site in Wylfa?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point about Wylfa. There are two aspects of this in relation to regulations. Small modular reactors are a way to ensure that we have a streamlined approach, because they will all be built in the same way and the regulation will apply to each one consistently. That in itself will speed up the process. But the first reactor will, of course, be the first and it will inevitably be a bit more complicated than the ones that follow. In terms of the application to Wales, the regulators that have UK-wide responsibilities will fall under the Fingleton review, and we will adopt the same processes. For those that have devolved accountabilities in Wales, we will discuss with Welsh Ministers and the Government.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the report in overall terms, but is my noble friend the Minister aware of the considerable concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of some of the data on fish impacts used in case studies about disproportionate decisions, which the report uses to criticise current nuclear regulation perhaps in a slightly inappropriate area? Is the Minister confident that the rest of the report is therefore reliable? Would the Minister meet with me and those scientists whose research demonstrates that some of the case studies in that area are not perhaps reliable?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I wondered how long it would take for fish to come up, and it has come up very quickly. It is important to note the burden of regulation on the nuclear industry in this country is far greater than in any other country. It is more expensive to build things here and it takes longer. For example, the environmental impact assessment for Hinkley Point was 31,401 pages; for Sizewell C, it was 44,260 pages. I understand the point my noble friend is making about the fish. The task force is one that recognises clearly that environmental processes are important. It does not aim to dilute them, but to ensure that decisions are faster, more predictable and proportionate. I would of course be happy to meet my noble friend to discuss any concerns she has about the specifics.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, the task force estimates tens of billions of pounds of potential savings, especially in the area of decommissioning. If savings are made, will the Minister commit to reinvest those funds into a safe disposal facility for our most highly radioactive waste?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, we have a very large nuclear waste store in this country. There are ongoing discussions about geological disposal facilities, which is a very key area. I will keep the House updated as we progress that.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will the noble Lord bring some sense of urgency and drive to the development of small nuclear reactors? It has been over 12 years since the Select Committee in the other place on which I served recommended that the Government bring in a programme. The Minister is now talking about three months to look at a report and two years to implement it. It was barely 10 years after the explosion of the atomic bomb that this country built its first nuclear reactor for peaceful uses, and within 20 years we had more than the rest of the world put together. Please bring back some drive—this is not a party-political point—as it has been lacking in recent years. I look to the Minister to bring it to bear.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I am absolutely delighted that the Opposition Benches have a feeling of urgency about this, because we certainly have not had it for the past 13 years. We have urgency; we have announced that we will have small modular reactors, and they are going ahead. Work will start on them next year and they are not dependent on the read-out from this review, which is also urgently needed for the reasons stated: we have a far more complicated system of regulation than we need.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that the revisions to the nuclear regulatory framework have come too late. We have lost to other countries the projects to develop fourth generation nuclear reactors that were intending to conduct their criticality tests in the UK. Can the Minister envisage any way of bringing these projects back to the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I think both the previous question and this question refer to something which is a big problem: we have neglected nuclear in this country for far too long and it is important that we get moving on it, both with small modular reactors and with advanced modular reactors. That is why there are plans for both of those now. EN-7, which was laid before the House as a strategic framework for this, lays out the need to be much more forward leaning on both of those and get them into this country as soon as we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, in September the US and UK signed a nuclear partnership worth £76 billion. Can the Minister tell the House what the impact on this partnership will be of a decision by the UK Government to turn down Westinghouse’s nuclear power plans for Wylfa? Did the Minister have a chance to see the remarks by the new outstanding US ambassador, His Excellency Warren Stephens the other day?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
A decision was made to get on with small modular reactors, and Wylfa is the site for that. That will start next year. At the same time, we have started a programme to look at other sites for gigawatt scale nuclear, which would include the Westinghouse programme. We will be working with Westinghouse and others as we look at potential sites around the country. That work started with urgency. We recognise that, in order to get the nuclear power that we need, we will probably need a mix of small modular reactors, advanced modular reactors and indeed more gigawatt reactors.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in answer to my noble friend’s question, the Minister described a storage facility for high-level nuclear waste. He knows that this is not a sustainable solution to the long-term issue of disposal of nuclear materials. There has been a long-standing stymie on the future of storage of waste. Will the Minister confirm at least that the process of looking at this will be restarted? As he rightly points out, there has been sclerosis in decision-making, and we need to know where the nuclear journey ends as well as when it starts.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I could not agree more about the urgency. We have a very big task, both with disposal of existing stores and with getting new nuclear moving. I had a meeting just yesterday discussing the geological disposal facility, what the options are and what is required in order to progress that. There is a very big challenge in making sure that we get this right. It is not going to happen quickly. The storage problem is one that is going to take a very long time to get right.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for updating the House on what the Labour Government have done since they were elected. Does he know what was happening for the last 13 years under the previous Administration? They are good at criticising what we are doing but ignore the 13 years they were in power.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As I have said, as a country we have been neglectful of nuclear for far too long. We had a leading position in the world, which we lost through inaction, and that has been the case for a very long time. I think now is the moment to make sure that we redress that. The small modular reactors and the Rolls Royce involvement present a domestic position to be able to have facilities not only in the UK but also for export. There has been a long period of neglect, and I think it is very important that we—and we will—treat this with great urgency now, because it is going to be a very important part of the energy mix going forward.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is sad that the Minister is trying to bring party politics into this. I live near nuclear power stations. From 1997 to 2010, Labour did not do a single thing about nuclear. From 2010, our coalition partners were not enthusiastic, but we got it going and we did things about the financing. It is really important that we try to think strategically. However, my question to the Minister is because I am concerned by one of the recommendations that, all of a sudden, it will be the Chancellor who will in effect try to encourage the regulators to consider what might be proportional. I am really worried about this, because the ONR was under the steerage of the Department for Work and Pensions, and not energy, deliberately to make sure that safety not only for workers but for local residents was paramount. Can the Minister give me an assurance that that safety focus will continue for local residents?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, I have been clear that there has been a long-standing neglect of nuclear. That has been across multiple Governments, and we should recognise that. The strategic steer to regulators was issued by the Prime Minister yesterday, so that is clear. It is important that regulators understand the desire of government to see this moving.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Definition of the criminal exploitation of children(1) The criminal exploitation of children is a form of child abuse in which a child under the age of 18 is used for purposes that constitute, enable or facilitate an offence under the law in England and Wales.(2) The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual.(3) The criminal exploitation of children can occur online and through the use of technology.”
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first amendment I have moved in your Lordships’ House and I hope I do it some justice because, in just one year, there were nine murders of young people associated with the pernicious drug trade colloquially known as county lines. As the MP for the constituency, I worked closely with the police service and colleagues across the other House to identify solutions to effectively close down the business model that used, abused and destroyed children and their families.
Much of what I hope to see to tackle this abomination has been delivered by this Government, and I am grateful. I very much welcome the new child criminal exploitation offence and the hefty jail sentences that this can carry. I am hopeful that, once these new charges are in effect and have been successfully levied against these child abusers, the very lucrative and cruelly efficient business model employed by the drug dealers will be less attractive and eventually made redundant due to the high penalties they face when caught.
County lines, as we know, is organised crime. It is adults grooming our children, mostly our young boys, and sending them off as cheap labour to deliver and sell drugs across the country. It is a cycle of grooming, abuse and exploitation that has become an industry. The children ensnared by these groomers live a terrifying existence. They witness depravity and violence almost day to day. They are disposable children, making big profits for the criminals who control and exploit them. I am absolutely delighted that the new offence will apply not only to groomers but to all individuals who arrange or facilitate a child committing a crime, ensuring that gang leaders who may plead ignorance of their subordinates’ practice do not evade the heavy sentences.
I am acutely aware that the children involved are, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, both victim and perpetrator. This was brought home to me by the experiences of a young man on the fringes of a gang, who was groomed by his neighbour, kidnapped by the gang and forced on a drugs run. He was terrified. He phoned his mum, crying and begging her to rescue him. When he was finally allowed home, they both went to the police to report his experiences. They waited for action against his abusers, but none came. However, on his 17th birthday, he was arrested for the crimes that he had, in effect, confessed to the police while reporting the actions of his abusers. It is obviously easy in this case to feel genuinely appalled by the actions of the criminal justice system and really angry about the ruined life chances of this young man, who had at that time been accepted into the Army.
I want to be clear that there are many other stories that are less easy for us to feel sympathy about—where the young person is both abused and the perpetrator, sometimes of heinous crimes. They are desensitised to the violence or fearful for their own safety, so that they cannot refuse an order from the elder. We need to create a system that can deal with the crimes while still recognising that the children were victims. This amendment is almost a mopping-up exercise, because we need a definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill, to work in conjunction with the offence detailed in Clause 40.
I honestly do not understand why, over years, the Home Office has resisted this small but I believe necessary action. I gently point out that the Modern Slavery Act has a definition in it, so why is there such resistance to a definition here? I do not know whether it is okay for me to admit at this point that I am wedded not to the words but to the concept and spirit of my amendment, and I am hopeful that this exceptionally helpful Minister will take away my desire and wish and bring back something that will work, if he feels that my words are insufficient to the cause.
Although Clause 40 rightly introduces an offence to prosecute those who exploit children to commit criminal activity, it does not, as I have said, provide a statutory definition of what constitutes child criminal exploitation for safeguarding and identification purposes. A statutory definition would serve a fundamentally different purpose from the criminal offence. It would provide a clear and consistent framework for identifying and protecting children at risk and enabling front-line agencies to intervene early and prevent harm.
Evidence from the national child safeguarding review panel and Action for Children’s Jay review into the criminal exploitation of children shows that the lack of a definition contributes to significant inconsistencies in practice and persistent failures to identify children as victims. There is often a postcode lottery, shaped by variable interpretations and thresholds across agencies and jurisdictions. Although I am grateful that the Government have committed to putting a definition in the guidance, I do not think this will go far enough because, frankly, the guidance may not be adopted by all the agencies that work with victims of this form of child abuse.
A statutory definition in the Bill would establish a shared understanding across all services, ensuring that children receive support regardless of where they live. It would, I hope, enhance multi-agency working, helping to build a national picture of exploitation and improve data collection and reporting. Importantly, it would support early intervention and prevention by providing a clear legal basis for services to respond to signs of exploitation before criminal harm escalates.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare several interests. I am a co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Slavery and vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. She has done a brilliant first amendment and I am delighted to support her. I played a very small part in the Modern Slavery Act: I was involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny and an earlier report that persuaded the then Home Secretary, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, to put the Bill in place.
Exploitation of children is in the Modern Slavery Act, but it is rather masked and has not been taken seriously, particularly by the police. Perhaps more importantly—this is one thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, did not say—under the Act, a child who is exploited cannot consent to exploitation and cannot commit an offence. That is absolutely crucial, and it probably ought to be expressed again in primary legislation.
I enormously admire a great deal of what this Government are trying to do. I went on behalf of Action for Children to a very useful meeting with Diana Johnson and Jess Phillips, where I got the impression that they were going to move forward on this. But what is offered in this Bill does not really meet the need. To put into guidance what was put in primary legislation 10 years ago seems to make it less important. I ask the Minister to reflect on why you would want to put into guidance something that was expressed, not as well, in primary legislation 10 years ago.
The time has come to deal with county lines. A great deal of work has been done by the National Crime Agency. At long last, at least some magistrates’ courts realise that children who are ferrying drugs around the country—and cash, nowadays, as well as drink and various other things—are in fact victims and not perpetrators. But it is not fully known. The police do not seem to understand it. We need to explain, through primary legislation, to whoever is now in charge of modern slavery in the police that we are talking about child exploitation, of which modern slavery is a component. There is no doubt that these children are enslaved, but I suspect that, in this country, the word “exploitation” is rather easier to understand—and it is time it was there.
This amendment is brilliant. It could perhaps be improved in certain ways, but it asks the Government to do something really practical which, when I went to that very useful meeting, I got the impression they were going to do.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown, but she may not need much support, having received the much-coveted gold star from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, I am very proud to say, supports a later amendment of mine on raising the age of criminal responsibility—which, I am ashamed to say, is barbarically only 10 in England and Wales. The UN recommends that it be 14. In Scotland it is 12 and the heavens do not seem to have fallen.
I have a couple of specific points to make in support of my noble friend’s amendment. If I may, I will be as bold as to predict what my noble friend the Minister and his advisers might be about to say in response. If they are about to say that my noble friend’s definition is unnecessary because the definition can be taken from the offence itself in Clause 40, I would like to get in first with two points to counter that. If I am pessimistic and wrong, so be it. Noble Lords know that I do not mind looking a fool.
The first point, which has already been made clearly by my noble friend Lady Brown, is that we need a definition that is about not just a specific criminal offence but interagency working and interventions across services, well in advance of any investigation or prosecution for a criminal offence.
I do not think the second point has been made yet. If the Committee compares the elements of my noble friend’s definition with the definition of the criminal offence in the Bill, it will see that the Government’s approach misses something very important that is to be found in my noble friend’s definition: enabling the child, not just causing the child, to engage in criminal conduct. That addition is important because “causing” is a harder thing to prove and a greater step in grooming. Currently, the Government’s definition is
“causing the child to commit an offence”,
or, indeed, “facilitating” somebody else to cause the child to commit the offence.
To prove causation in law is a serious matter. Enabling—making it easy, making the tools of the trade available, providing the opportunity—is a lower threshold, which is appropriate in the context of children. My noble friend made the point that currently in law they are treated as victims but also as perpetrators, and sometimes it is a matter of luck as to whether you will find the adult and the public service who will take the proper approach, in my view, of always treating the child as a child and as a victim, and not criminalising them. This is the point about “enabling”.
My noble friend the Minister is very experienced in these matters. Whatever he comes back with, I would like him and his advisers to consider the question of the lower threshold of enabling, not just causing. If there is to be a further compromise that includes some element of my noble friend Lady Brown’s amendment, I hope that that is taken on board.
The most formative time in my professional life was as a Home Office lawyer. I know what it is like to work on big Bills and to defend them as originally crafted and drafted. But it is wise, especially in this House, to take good advice and to bend a little when it might improve legislation for the benefit of victims.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I absolutely congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, on her excellently motivated amendment. It is very thought provoking. In particular, this sentence caught my attention:
“The victim may have been criminally exploited even if the activity appears consensual”.
That is one of the most difficult challenges. For some years I have been involved in the grooming gangs scandal, and one of the most horrible parts of that was when the police took the decision that the young 14 or 15 year-old, precocious though she—a general “she”—may have been, was somehow actively consenting to her own rape or sexual exploitation. It was about the notion of this being a child, because the young girl may have looked more adult—it was literally as superficial as that—and about the type, if we are honest, in class terms. Therefore, it was said that she could not be a victim and she was accused of being a prostitute, and so on. We are familiar with that. That is the reason why that sentence stood out to me.
However, I have some qualms, and I want to ask genuinely what we do about those qualms, because I do not know where to go. I am slightly worried, because county lines gangs, as the noble Baroness will know, are a young men’s game. Some of the gang leaders are younger than one would ever want to imagine in your worst nightmare. That is a problem with this, in a way, and with how you work it out. If you have a general rule that this is always a child, how do you deal with the culpability and responsibility of a 17 year-old thug, not to put too fine a point on it, who is exploiting younger people or even his—and it is generally “his”—peers? I am not sure how to square that with what I have just said. It also seems that there is a major clash with the age of criminal responsibility. I am very sympathetic with that not being 10, but how do you deal with the belief that someone aged under 18 is a child, yet we say that a child has criminal responsibility? Perhaps I am just misunderstanding something.
My final reservation is that if we say that everybody under 18 has to be a victim all the time, would that be a legal loophole that would get people off when there was some guilt for them to be held to account for? I generally support this amendment, but I want some clarification on how to muddle my way through those moral thickets, if possible.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness on how she moved the amendment. It is very nice to see a Government Back-Bencher introducing an amendment and taking part; I wish we had slightly more of it.
To bring one back to Professor Jay’s review of child criminal exploitation, she made several important recommendations, of which the first and arguably most important is at the heart of what we are talking about at the moment. She called for a single, cohesive legal code for children exploited into criminal activity, and detailed what that needed to contain. The noble Baroness’s amendment goes to the heart of that matter. Having well-meaning explanations put into advice or regulation is not enough. There needs not only to be a common understanding across all government departments and agencies involved in dealing with these children and gangs; it needs to be completely clear for the police in particular, who are clearly looking into the criminal activity, exactly what it is and what it is not.
With the next amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and I shall speak, we will talk about ways in which a child who is both a victim and perpetrator can be defended—but we will discuss that in the next group. As for this group, I think that I probably speak for all noble Lords who are concerned about this issue in saying that absolute clarity about the definition, so there is no argument about it whatever, would be a giant step forward. The best-meaning attempts to deal with child criminal exploitation over the past decade have been hindered severely by the lack of consistency.
I ask the Government to listen very carefully to what the noble Baroness has asked for. She has said clearly that her wording may not be perfect—I think that in many Bills the wording is not necessarily perfect, even in the final Act—but we have a chance to get this right. I look forward to what the Minister says in response.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I fully endorse the important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. I had great pleasure in working with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the Modern Slavery Bill. I am totally in awe of her experience and her willingness to share that experience, which, as a new Peer, was absolutely wonderful for me—although I could certainly do with it now as well.
The government amendments in this group provide more welcome detail on the definition and operation of child criminal exploitation prevention orders and include provisions necessary to cover the whole of the UK, not just England and Wales. As with other government amendments during the passage of the Bill, we welcome the expansion of detail in the Bill. Could the Minister confirm that each of the three devolved states has approved the relevant amendments in this group? It would be very good to hear that this has already been done. I do not disagree with anything that anyone has said so far—it has been an excellent and very clear unification of the views of everyone here.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, for introducing this large group of amendments. As noble Lords will appreciate, many of the amendments before us today concern matters of clarification or technical improvement to ensure consistency across the Bill and the amendments tabled so far.
We on these Benches are broadly supportive of these changes, particularly when they strengthen child safeguarding protections and improve clarity, which we hope will eventually result in more seamless practical implementation. In this regard, we welcome amendments extending the scope of child criminal exploitation prevention orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those clarifying procedural matters, such as the form of notification requirements when oral notification may not be practicable. These are sensible adjustments that contribute to ensuring that the Bill operates coherently across the four nations and in real-world enforcement scenarios.
I briefly draw attention to Amendment 235ZA in my name, which would remove Clause 43(3)(a). That subsection currently requires that, when a court makes a criminal exploitation prevention order, the terms of the order must avoid
“conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant”.
Although religious beliefs are, of course, an important individual right, the purpose of these orders is to protect children from very serious criminal harm. It is, therefore, my view that safeguarding and public protection must take precedence over all other concerns and that no such exemption should hinder appropriate and proportionate restrictions when a court considers them necessary. I hope the Government consider the matter carefully and take the recommendation on board.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for bringing forward Amendment 235A, which would give the courts an explicit ability to impose a prevention order to protect a child from being threatened, intimidated or coerced into criminal exploitation. The intention behind the amendment—to intervene earlier and more effectively to safeguard children at risk—is one that I hope all sides of the Committee can support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification of how the Bill will ensure that those protections are fully delivered. These are complex issues, but our shared objective is simple: to ensure that vulnerable children are protected and that those who exploit them face firm consequences. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the points that have been raised here today.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, if the Committee will allow me, I will begin by detailing the government amendments in this group. We know that criminal gangs conducting activity such as county lines drug dealing do not stop at internal UK borders, and children are criminally exploited across the UK. To go to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, mentioned, this is why—at the request of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice—we are making provision in the Bill for child criminal exploitation prevention orders in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is at their request, and I hope that also answers the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. Since the Bill covers England and Wales, this means that the offence of child criminal exploitation will now apply UK-wide. These amendments have been tabled because, since the Bill was published, we have had those discussions and this is a way of making sure that we have a UK-wide approach.
These orders will give the police and courts across the whole of the United Kingdom powers to prevent child criminal exploitation happening in the first place, or happening again, by putting prohibitions and requirements on an adult who poses a risk of criminally exploiting a child. As I have mentioned, these provisions have been drafted in collaboration with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments and consequential amendments are therefore required for England and Wales to ensure that the orders function smoothly across the United Kingdom.
Finally, we have tabled some other amendments to put beyond doubt that assessment of whether an individual has engaged in child criminal exploitation, or associated conduct, in an application for, or imposition of, a child criminal exploitation prevention order is to be determined by the court on the basis of the civil standard of proof; that is, the balance of probabilities. This is appropriate given that there are civil rather than criminal proceedings in this case. The application of the civil standard of proof is well precedented in many similar preventive orders across the statute book and is important to ensure that an order can intervene earlier in the course of a child’s exploitation so that it can be prevented. I hope that I have wide support across the Committee for those measures—I think I do.
Amendment 232B is in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown. I welcome her moving her first amendment in such a positive way. She has secured the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which is a fairly impressive bunch on a first amendment, so I say well done to her on that. Her amendment seeks to create a further definition of child criminal exploitation.
I say to my noble friend—and I think that this was anticipated by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—that “child criminal exploitation” is already defined in Clause 40 by the description of conduct amounting to an offence. It is where an adult
“engages in conduct towards or in respect of a child, with the intention of … causing the child to”
engage in criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised a number of issues for which I am not accountable, but which my noble friend may wish to respond to. That is the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 40. Clause 40 captures activity online, through the use of technology and whether or not it is seemingly consensual. This definition also operates for the purposes of the child criminal exploitation prevention orders.
My noble friend has made a very strong case, through personal experience as a constituency MP in east London for almost 20 years, on the impact of county lines gangs on young people. I fully accept, understand and appreciate where she is coming from on those issues. That is why the Government introduced Clause 40 in the first place. It is also why the Government are introducing a bespoke stand-alone offence of CCE, along with the CCE prevention orders, to signal unequivocally that using a child to commit crime is against the law and that those children are victims of a crime. I also agree that any apparent consent of the child to involvement is irrelevant to whether they have been criminally exploited, and that criminal exploitation can occur online and through the use of technology. I understand my noble friend’s amendment, but these points are captured by the definition of CCE in Clause 40, which does not include a child’s consent and captures adults’ conduct by means of any method or control.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Obviously, I correctly anticipated the response that was coming, but I would be grateful if my noble friend would deal with this point about “enabling”, which is a substantive point of difference in the two definitions. Enabling is easier to prove than causing. “Causing” is closer to a child being used, which is reflected in my noble friend Lady Brown’s definition, but I do not think that “enabling” is in the Clause 40 definition as it stands.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate my noble friend’s comments. If she will bear with me, I will come on to that point in a moment. I am doing this in a structured order to try to address the points that are before the Committee today.
I say to my noble friend Lady Brown that, within the Bill, we are also taking the power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend have looked at that, and I will return to it in a moment. The guidance will include a descriptive definition of CCE, setting out in lay person’s terms the conduct captured by the offence, and will provide practical guidance on how the CCE offence and orders should be applied.
An important point, to go particularly to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that in Clause 60—which we will come to in later considerations—the Secretary of State has power to issue statutory guidance to chief officers of police about the exercise of their functions in connection with the prevention, detection and investigation of CCE offences and CCE prevention orders. I hope that the Committee will recognise that, importantly, the relevant police officers will be under a legal duty to have due regard to that statutory guidance when exercising functions in relation to the CCE offences and the CCE prevention orders. On the question of the statutory guidance, which my noble friend and others have touched on, the guidance has not been issued yet because the relevant legislation has not yet received the consent of this House or indeed Royal Assent. On the applicability of both of those conditions, statutory guidance under Clause 60 will be issued, which will place a legal duty on police officers to adhere to it.
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned a very important point. There is a clear difference in what my noble friend Lady Brown of Silvertown has put forward, supported by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I hope this helps: the forms of conduct that are likely to enable a child to commit criminality are expected in most cases to also meet the test of conduct by an adult intended to cause, or facilitate the causing of, a child to commit a future crime. The nature of the offence, which is broad and large, will ensure that it captures offenders who will use children for crime. I believe that that is the right format. Both my noble friends have said that “enable” is a critical word. I believe that a separate definition is unnecessary, as it would have no legal impact over and above what is already in the Bill. It could cause confusion among police and prosecutors about which definition they should be applying.
The statutory guidance, which I emphasise will gave a legal bass and will be issued under Clause 60, is the appropriate place to provide the extra detail to understand proposals that are covered by the amendment, but which are already in scope of the clear and simple legal terms of Clause 40. I know that that is the defence that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti expected me to use, but it is the defence: Clause 40 is what it is, and the guidance will also be statutory.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
While statutory guidance is welcome, this particular case has similarities to other areas of the criminal law where the motivations and behaviours are complex, such as stalking and various areas of domestic abuse. In every case where regulation has been put in such a way that it becomes statutory, unless that goes hand in hand with appropriate and quite intensive training, you can have as many regulations as you like, as legally watertight as you like, but if the officials who are charged with implementing it do not understand the complexity that they are dealing with and cannot define and understand exactly how to apply the regulations, you are going to have confusion. We have a lot of history of that not happening. Good intentions are one thing; what actually happens when you put it out there and expect that everybody will understand and comply with it is another, and that is a concern that a lot of us have.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a valid point. I have considered with officials how we ensure enforcement of the guidance. I simply put it to the noble Earl—and we can debate this outside the Bill—that the statutory guidance is issued to chief constables of police forces under Clause 60 and they have a legal duty to ensure that statutory guidance is implemented, and officers have a legal duty to support and interpret that at a local level when they are faced with incidents of child exploitation as defined by the Bill. That requires a whole shift of culture and of training—I understand that. I will take from this comment and from the Committee generally that my colleagues in the Home Office need to look not just at the guidance but at its implementation. Ultimately, it has a statutory footing, and that is the key point for the Committee.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Will the Minister take on board the fact that countless inspections of police training, including by HMICFRS, have said that there has not been an independent assessment of police training since 2018, despite the fact that so many of the policing bodies themselves have asked for it? Taking the point, will he now say that there will be an independent assessment, so that police training can be much more appropriate and police will know exactly what they are supposed to be doing when we sit in this House and make legislation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will sound like I am repeating myself from Question Time, but, very shortly, we anticipate bringing forward a policing White Paper looking at a whole range of mechanisms to improve police performance. If the noble Baroness will allow me, I will wait for further detail on the policing White Paper, which I have already said to the House will be published before Christmas, to allow for further discussion on a range of efficiency and improvement matters for policing. The point she makes is worthy of consideration, but I will park it until a later date in the parliamentary calendar.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed response, but will he reflect on the potential distinction between “enabling” and “causing”? Will he go back to parliamentary counsel and be clear that enablers will always meet this threshold of causation? I am really concerned about that. I understand that my noble friend has rejected the idea of a separate free-standing definition and is worried about confusion between the offence definition and a general definition, but in blending the intentions of the Government and those of my noble friend Lady Brown, it would be helpful to know that that language of “causing”, without specific mention of enabling, is watertight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for further pressing me on the issue. I have tried to explain to the Committee where the Government are on this. We always reflect on debates in Committee, because there are always opportunities for my noble friend and others to bring matters back on Report. I am giving the Committee today the Government’s view that the definition in Clause 40, plus the guidance issued under Clause 60, will be sufficient to cover the objective of ensuring that we have this offence on the statute book and monitored and enforced by authorities.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I have just remembered that we will have further discussions on police training in later groups in Committee today, but the White Paper will deal with a whole range of matters on improving police performance.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
If the Minister can bear one more intervention, would he be good enough to take back the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown? I cannot quite understand why that amendment is not listed nearer to Clause 40, because it would have been helpful to look at the two together, as has not been done to any great extent. I say politely to the Minister that I prefer the noble Baroness’s interpretation of exploitation.
The other point I want to make is that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is absolutely right—it is a point I have not made, but I am well aware of it—that at the age of 18, people who may have been victims become perpetrators. Some of them become perpetrators because they have no choice, but others—the young thugs she spoke about—are genuine perpetrators. Therefore, to specify the age of 18 in Clause 40 may be misleading.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the further pressure on this issue from the Cross Benches. My job is to set out to the Committee the Government’s view on these amendments, which I am trying to do. The measures in Clause 40 and the guidance in Clause 60 are sufficient to meet the objectives of my noble friend and, at the same time, to ensure—let us not forget this—that this offence goes on to the statute book for the first time. It will have a big impact on county line gangs and on defining further criminal child exploitation. I have put the Government’s view; we will obviously reflect on what my noble friend has said and I am happy to meet her, with other colleagues, outside the Committee to discuss that explanation further. I recognise the great motivation my noble friend had in bringing this to the Committee. I hope she will reflect on what I have said and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
I believe I get another chance to speak. I am grateful to all contributors to my amendment today. I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I tried, but obviously not impactfully enough, to talk about the complexities involved and the differences between an abused child and a perpetrator, and how difficult it is for the criminal courts—and all of us—to understand the distinction.
I say gently to my noble friend the Minister that given that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Doocey, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—if I might pray her in aid—are all pressing on this issue, it would be a good idea for the Government to reflect properly on it.
I knew that the argument was going to be that my amendment is unnecessary. With 20 years’ experience in Parliament, I know that there have been many unnecessary clauses in Bills, and indeed that some Bills have become Acts that some people believe are unnecessary. I cheekily ask what harm it could do. It would be fabulous if my noble friend the Minister could humour us and bung it in. I genuinely believe that this is an important part of the protection of our children in the future. In hope, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
(ii) doing anything in Scotland or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in England and Wales) if done in England and Wales;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of “engaging in child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK that would be an offence under clause 40 if done in England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the meaning of “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation”, in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass conduct anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.
(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows for notifications to be made in a way specified in the CCE prevention order. This is likely to be used to provide for notifications other than in person when the defendant lives outside England and Wales in cases where in person notification is considered unreasonable.
“(5A) An “appropriate police station” is a police station in the police area in which—(a) the defendant’s home address is situated, or(b) the court which made the order is situated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my first amendment to clause 48, page 65, line 29.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this clause, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this clause, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment inserting a new subsection (1A) into clause 51, makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
“(1A) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order; (b) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) (CCE prevention orders in Scotland);(c) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment to clause 51(1), makes the offence in this clause cover breaches of CCE prevention orders made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments to clause 51.
“(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1A) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(7) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland which appears to the Secretary of State to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State power to amend the list of orders made by courts in Northern Ireland or Scotland, breach of which constitutes an offence.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 51.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“CCE prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland
Child criminal exploitation prevention orders: Scotland and Northern Ireland(1) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland. (2) Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) makes provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a new clause which introduces Schedules with provision about child criminal exploitation prevention orders for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
“Criminal exploitation protection order (CEPO)(1) A criminal exploitation protection order (“CEPO”) is an order which protects a child who meets the condition in subsection (2) from further harm by—(a) prohibiting the child from doing anything described in the order, and(b) requiring the child to do anything described in the order.(2) The condition is that the child has been threatened, forced, intimidated or persuaded to commit criminal acts or actions that support or facilitate criminal activity.(3) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of protecting the child from criminal exploitation.(4) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the child;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the child normally attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or injunction to which the child is subject.(5) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(6) A CEPO must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, or(b) state that it has effect until a further order.(7) A CEPO may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CEPO in respect of a child who is already subject to such an CEPO, the earlier CEPO ceases to have effect.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulation made by statutory instrument make provision for the—(a) procedure for making,(b) notification requirements for,(c) variation, discharge and appeal of, and(d) imposition of measures in response to a child breachinga CEPO.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create a new “criminal exploitation protection order” (CEPO) to protect children who have been subject to criminal exploitation from further harm. It seeks to protect children from committing criminal acts or being drawn into activity to support or facilitate criminal activity due to criminal exploitation. The order could be complementary to a prevention order (see Chapter 1 of the Bill) that would apply to their adult exploiters.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, we have already demonstrated today just how complex this issue is. We began talking about it on the last day in Committee and, as I said last week, it affects children and young people in ways we never imagined; nor did we imagine years ago that this would become almost normal for some communities and in some areas. I wish it was simple and easy to say, “They are the victims and they are the perpetrators”. It is not as easy as that. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Brown on her amendment. We know that when some children and young people have tried to say, “We’re in trouble—can we get help?”, the response from the agencies has largely been, “You’ve committed an offence and we have to make you accountable for that”. I understand that, but in this amendment I am seeking to make another approach possible.
I thank Action for Children and declare my interest as an ambassador for it. I have been involved with Action for Children for virtually my whole life; it used to be a Methodist organisation, the National Children’s Home. I was involved for about 12 years in governance terms, but have always been involved with it. It works around the country, although I know more of its work in the north-east, and this has been an issue for it in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the country, wherever it has been working.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for having given my Amendment 235A a positive acclamation. However, I did not move it because it struck me that the amendment we are now debating is actually better than the one I tabled. Therefore, there seemed no point in having a double debate. I listened very carefully to the excellent exposition of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, which is really important.
I came to this having looked after three children’s homes when I was a GP. I became suspicious that there was something funny going on in one of them but could never put a finger on it or get social services to recognise it. However, I am sure there was, because one Christmas the children in that home set fire to it and burnt it down—but I really do not know what was happening, and I never found out.
It is terrifying the layers with which children can be enticed, encouraged and supported into criminal activity and then become quite expert at it. They are terribly intimidated and frightened for their lives. The intimidation may not be overt but covert. They have threats made against them, their families, for their lives, or of mutilation. They get beaten up and all kinds of terrible things happen. That locks them further into a world of criminality.
It therefore seemed that this would be the third side of the triangle, if you like. We talk about prosecuting the exploiter, and we talk about prosecuting the child for whatever crimes they have committed. Let us be honest: these are sometimes very difficult children. They are severely emotionally damaged, very difficult to get close to, and will not disclose to people in authority what is really happening to them, because they are so terrified. Therefore, they may be unwilling to disclose information to the police. Then, we have this gap which still leaves them liable and open to exploitation.
It was with that thought that this amendment, this concept, came forward, to try to close that gap a little bit. I hope when the Minister sums up—and perhaps criticises this clause, because I anticipate we might be told it is not necessary—that he explains what harm such an order would do. I cannot see how it would make anything worse, but it may certainly make things better, and that was the sentiment behind the support of the Opposition Front Bench for this concept.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when I first saw this new clause, I did not pay too much attention, but having looked at it in more detail, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, since I think they are on to something here. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has confirmed that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who has a long track record of fighting for the rights of children, from trying to save the children’s playground in Victoria Tower Gardens from the Holocaust Memorial Bill to his track record of tabling amendments to this Bill and others.
Researching the Casey review recently with regard to my amendments on grooming gangs prompted me to look at this again. Then, I realised that a CEPO would be valid in dealing with some of the problems caused by those grooming gangs. The criminal exploitation of children is a real, growing concern across the UK, with increasing numbers of young people being coerced, manipulated or forced into criminal activity by adults or older peers.
As the Committee knows, these vulnerable children suffer significant harm, both physically and psychologically, and often find themselves trapped in cycles of offending, unable to escape the influence of exploiters. In response to this issue, the concept of a criminal exploitation protection order is possibly a very sensible idea to offer targeted legal protection for children who have been victims of criminal exploitation.
Existing legal frameworks, while robust in certain areas, do not sufficiently address the unique vulnerabilities of children subject to criminal exploitation. Traditional criminal justice responses may inadvertently criminalise victims—as we have seen all too frequently with the grooming gangs cases—or fail to disrupt the exploitative relationships at the heart of their offending.
A CEPO could fill this gap by prioritising the welfare and protection of exploited children, recognising them as victims rather than solely perpetrators. The order would empower authorities to intervene proactively, preventing further harm and breaking the cycle of exploitation.
The details are not in the Bill, and the regulations will set out the details, but I would expect and hope that the regulations may do the following. On prohibitions, the CEPO could prohibit children from engaging in specified activities that are linked to their exploitation, such as associating with certain individuals, visiting particular locations or possessing items used in criminal activity.
On the positive requirements for the children, the order may require them to take positive steps such as attending counselling, engaging with support services or participating in educational programmes designed to build resilience and reduce vulnerability. Those are just a few examples, but I hope that the regulations would detail a whole range of things that children could be stopped from doing and encourage them to do good things.
Importantly, this is a holistic approach: by combining restrictions on the one hand and supportive measures on the other, the CEPO could address both the immediate risks and underlying factors that contribute to continued exploitation. CEPOs could prevent further harm, as the order would be seen as a protective barrier, reducing the likelihood of children being drawn back into criminal activity and shielding them from exploiters.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was very happy to add my name, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to this amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who indicated that he wanted to speak before me. He has done sterling service by saying a great deal of what I was going to say, so I will not bore your Lordships with that.
I have one or two confessions. On Methodism, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that I come from several generations of Methodist ministers—the Reverends MacDonald—one of whom was one of John Wesley’s original disciples. At some point, my family slightly lost the plot and became lapsed Anglicans, like I suspect a lot of your Lordships.
If the Minister is kind enough to mention me again in his response, in promoting me to an Earl, he is doing a disservice to the direct descendant of Lord John Russell, an ex-Prime Minister. I call in evidence a letter that my grandfather and the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, wrote to the editor of the Times in 1961, saying: “Dear Sir, we would like to point out that neither of us is the other. Yours, Russell, Russell of Liverpool”. I had to say the same thing to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, when she also inadvertently promoted me.
I again point out that this proposed new clause has the absolute support of Professor Jay, who has looked into this issue in more detail than any of the rest of us. I am a great believer that, when trying to argue the case for something, we should not talk about it in abstract or general terms but try to personalise it by talking about a real-life case which perhaps indicates the virtue of having an order such as this. Therefore, I will give a real-life example from the work done by Action for Children.
There is a 16 year-old young man with ADHD who is experiencing significant criminal exploitation, including daily cannabis use, coercion through drug debt and regular threats of violence. His engagement with support services, unsurprisingly, is somewhat inconsistent and is often influenced by the level of control and threats of violence exerted by the exploiters. The police have already made him subject to a youth referral order for drug and weapon offences, but law enforcement has deprioritised his case due to a perceived lack of co-operation. In the circumstances the young man finds himself in, a lack of co-operation with law enforcement is perhaps somewhat understandable. Recent incidents that have occurred to this young man include a violent attack on his home by individuals linked to his exploitation. One of his perpetrators is housed in the same residential block of flats as him, which must be somewhat unpleasant. The young person remains fearful for his and his mother’s safety, but he is unwilling to disclose information, which currently limits statutory intervention options.
If we had this order, it would enable the authorities to protect that young man and his mother by stopping him from contacting certain people. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it would mandate him turning up to appointments with support services. It would restrict and monitor his movements to create a distance from the exploiters. In the case of serious threat of harm, or in an instance where a perpetrator is living almost next door, it would also give the authorities the ability to provide alternative accommodation to protect that young person and his family.
For all those reasons, I wish and hope that the Minister and his department will look at this very carefully. A relatively small percentage of child victims and perpetrators may be involved, but to protect them in the way we have described would be effective, proportionate and worth while.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I chair a commission on forced marriage. One of the most useful things that the Labour Government did in 2007 was create a forced marriage protection order. That was intended to deal with the perpetrators rather than the victims. However, having listened to the speeches so far, I realised that I had not thought of protection orders being for the victim rather than to prevent the victim being dealt with.
It is an admirable scheme. I was much touched by the story that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, gave to us. One thing that would make it most useful is to deal with parents. My experience is not so much in this area, but when I was a family judge, one of the problems, particularly in care cases, was the inability of the parents to manage their children. Very often, the children were very well meaning, but they absolutely would not do what their parents said. Is anybody who is a parent surprised? As a grandparent, I am even less surprised by the fact that children, if they are told to do something by a parent, will not do it—just out of bloody-mindedness, apart from anything else.
This would offer a genuine ability to look after a child who is being exploited and is extremely vulnerable, but whose parents, trying as hard as they can, cannot manage him or her. This would give them the power, apart from the authorities, to do something useful—and useful not just for the child but for the state.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this amendment, which would provide a valuable additional tool to protect children who are criminally exploited while at the same time committing criminal acts that victimise others. The amendment seeks to address these behaviours proportionately, managing the child’s risk to others without inflicting the potentially life-changing damage of having a criminal label attached, while ensuring the child is protected from further exploitation.
A criminal exploitation protection order would be an important step towards providing an end-to-end response for children in this situation. Unlike a youth rehabilitation order, it would directly target behaviours linked to child criminal exploitation, addressing the unique power imbalances and coercion involved in those often-complex situations. I urge the Government to look closely at the proposed order, which would be an extremely worthwhile addition to the Bill and which has the full support of these Benches.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, for bringing forward this important amendment. It speaks to an issue that has been much discussed during the Bill’s passage: the urgent need to protect children who are coerced or manipulated into criminal activity by those who exploit them for profit and control.
Amendment 247 proposes a new clause to establish a criminal exploitation protection order. This would be aimed directly at safeguarding children who have already been subjected to criminal exploitation, preventing further harm. As the noble Baroness has eloquently explained, these children deserve support and a clear pathway out of exploitation. Undoubtedly, there is merit in exploring whether a new bespoke order focused on the safety and welfare of the exploited child could complement the existing prevention orders in the Bill which target the adult perpetrators. We recognise the intention behind ensuring that prohibitions and requirements are carefully balanced so as not to interfere unnecessarily with education, family life or existing legal orders. From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment.
We recognise that introducing new regimes raises practical considerations that must be considered. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to further discussion as the Bill progresses. Protecting children from exploitation must be central to this legislation. I thank the noble Baroness for her continued leadership on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for Amendment 247. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their support for the amendment, and for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I am sorry to have elevated the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—obviously, I was transfixed by the “Liverpool” part of his title. I appreciate his gentle chiding of me for that rookie error, which I still occasionally make after 15 months in this place. I apologise for that.
I hope I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the criminal exploitation of children and to supporting children who are victims of criminal exploitation. There are a number of comprehensive provisions in the Bill. In early December, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is meeting the Policing Minister in the Home Office to discuss these issues. I am grateful for her expertise and for the discussions that my noble friend Lady Armstrong has had with Action for Children and colleagues outside of the House.
I fully understand and agree with the desire to safeguard children from the horrific consequences of criminal exploitation. That is why the Government are delivering on the manifesto commitment to bring forward this order, under the clauses that we have discussed, and go after the gangs that are luring young people into violence and crime. Additionally, as the Committee will know, through Clauses 42 to 55 and Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Government’s criminal exploitation prevention orders will place prohibitions and requirements on adults who pose a risk of exploiting children into criminality.
This brings me to the central point of the amendment before us. The Government have considered the position but feel that the most effective way to manage the behaviour of those who have criminally exploited children, or who are at risk of doing so, and to protect children from being criminally exploited are the measures in the Bill. We should be restricting the conduct of the adult perpetrator rather than of the child victim.
I simply say to my noble friend—this is an important point—that for legislation to be effective, there needs to be a consequence for non-compliance. If the measure that she has brought forward was put into legislation, we would be focusing on the child victim and their behaviour. In the event of non-compliance, unless there is a consequence to that—and I am not quite sure what that consequence would be—the proposal would have no legal effect. If a child breaches the prohibition or requirements in an order, the first response could be a further narrowing of the prohibitions or requirements, or varying them. Ultimately, a breach of the order would require a consequence, and I am not sure that we have considered that matter in full.
The Government believe that the measures we are introducing in the Bill will create greater awareness of child criminal exploitation and increase identification of victims, and will ensure that we assist victims in receiving appropriate support. When victims are identified, practitioners will be encouraged to recognise vulnerability, first and foremost, and, I hope, to clearly signal that the children who are used by adults to commit crime are victims of abuse.
I hear what noble Lords have said. Everybody who has spoken has broadly supported the direction of travel. We want to draw on that wealth of experience and insight, which is why my colleagues, the Policing Minister and the Safeguarding Minister in the Home Office, are hosting a round table with experts before Christmas to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and look at how we can better support children who are victims of crime and potentially perpetrators of crime.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
It seems fairly obvious to me that if the order were breached by the child, the child would end up in the family proceedings court preferably, rather than the family criminal court. That could be done by an order, and it might not do any harm for the child. There could be some innovative thinking in the Home Office as to other ways of dealing with this. The real point being made today, if I might remind Minister, is about helping the parents. At the moment, I do not see what else can help the parents. I would be very grateful to know what the Minister thinks about that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, brings forward one potential output of a breach of an order, and I accept that that is a potential output. The point I am making to my noble friend is that we want to discuss what happens to the child and the range of consequences. That is why my honourable friend the Policing Minister and my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister, are meeting agencies in this field to look at what is going to happen. That is planned for before Christmas. There is a separate meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Although the noble and learned Baroness has brought forward one consequence, I want to look at all the issues. I am not able to accept the amendment before us because that is one of the issues that is not resolved. Therefore, although I understand the desire behind this, I ask that my noble friend withdraws her amendment today and allows for reflection to occur.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister and look forward to the meeting. To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I wonder whether the Minister, in tackling this, recognises that many times, the so-called parents will be someone who has legal responsibility but who actually may not be helping the child. One of the issues with an order such as this would potentially be making sure that those who have legal responsibility for a child also have a duty to try to enforce the protection of that child. That may mean a change in their own behaviours. It is a complicated issue. I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and to the Home Office for recognising that somehow, something has to be done. This might not be perfect, but we cannot leave a big gap there.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept and understand that young children will be impacted by the potential behaviour of the parent, or indeed the lack of behaviour by the parent. The suggestion of the order may be a contributing factor which might assist with that. I have tried to point out to the Committee that there are a number of issues. First, this would be an order against the child, which is a big issue. Secondly, there would have to be a consequence for a breach. Thirdly, the Government’s focus in the Bill is on action on adults. Those are three issues that I put on the table for the Committee and which lead me to ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
However, the engagement and discussions, both with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and with the coalition of groups that have a concern about this, will continue before Christmas. That will obviously give the mover of the amendment an opportunity to reflect upon it. But in the meantime, I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and to the previous one.
This is complex and we all want to have good outcomes. I appreciate that the Minister is saying that we need more discussion and to make sure that we address this issue in a way that safeguards children and young people but also deals with perpetrators and potential perpetrators and makes sure that the families of the children and young people are engaged in the way that we sort things out. The real problem is that it is much more than just Home Office business, which I appreciate. However, Members of this House have made great strides in at least beginning to identify the issues, reflecting our discussions and experiences from outside. That is important. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government and the Minister in the next period of time so that we can come up with something that people will have confidence in. In that spirit, I therefore seek to withdraw the amendment.
Sudan
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the humanitarian situation in Sudan.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Government for granting this debate at a very opportune time, with Lady Sandwich in the Gallery and a detailed report, Rivers of Blood, dedicated to the late Lord Sandwich, being delivered this morning to the APPG.
I thank the Minister for her commitment to addressing the urgent and long-term situation in Sudan, a country I love, where I have friends and which I have visited a number of times, most recently in June 2024. My concerns and engagement will continue after I retire from the House this afternoon, albeit in a different way. I note that the Order Paper says this is a valedictory speech, but I would be grateful if we kept our focus on Sudan.
The humanitarian situation in Sudan is so dire that “urgent” does not do justice to the need for action. I will not repeat the many reports from agencies engaged on the ground in Sudan, but they make for harrowing hearing and reading. A number have provided briefings in Parliament in the last few days. We had planned for the Archbishop of Sudan, Ezekiel Kondo, to be here today, but he had to return to Port Sudan a couple of days ago.
The lack of attention to Sudan in western media is bewildering in many respects, but it seems that increasing attention is now being paid. The suffering in Sudan is almost unbearable, the worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet, and it is neither new nor simply a phenomenon of only the last three years. Whatever the causes of and motivations behind the current conflict, it is civilians—women, children, young men and vulnerable ethnic groups—who are being targeted and abused in the most inhumane ways.
I will give a few numbers. It is estimated that up to 150,000 people have died and 13 million have been displaced, 9.6 million internally and 4.3 million in exile. Some 25 to 30 million people are hungry, malnourished or severely malnourished. Save the Children estimates that 16 million children are in need of aid and that, in 2024, more than 2,000 cases of children being killed, maimed, abducted, raped and violated were recorded—and that is just what we know. Sexual violence against children, women and young men is out of control, fuelled by an evident assumption of impunity and unaccountability by perpetrators. Shame is being weaponised in the most vicious and immoral way. Access to aid is frequently blocked, and funding is inadequate to the need.
In so-called illegal immigration to the UK, Sudan is now the most represented group. Migration to neighbouring countries such as South Sudan and Chad is in the millions and having a powerful effect on those countries. According to several agencies on the ground, the numbers of people killed or maimed by explosive weaponry, either directly or from unexploded arms, are increasing. I could go on.
The siege of El Fasher led to deliberate targeting of civilians, widespread massacres and a targeted and systematic strategy of wiping out non-Arab Africans, with a view to erasing or rewriting the country’s history, culture and identity. At a briefing in Parliament last week, we heard that the script is already written, as the RSF now move on to Tawila and El Obeid. We cannot say we do not know what will happen in the Kordofans, as the rehearsal in El Fasher was so successful for the RSF. Civilians, humanitarian workers and volunteers are unprotected against both the SAF and the RSF, cannon fodder in a war they did not start. It is timely that Sudan is now rising in prominence in both the political and media spheres. The USA is finally beginning to wake up to the crisis.
Other noble Lords will bring specific points to bear in the short speech time allowed, so I do not want to cover every aspect of the tragedy we are witnessing. I hope we will not have too much repetition, deviation or hesitation but will put on record the many sides of this conflict that need repeatedly to be heard, noted and responded to. I am grateful to the Minister, who has prioritised Sudan and made herself available for briefings and conversations. “Governments need to do more” is a constant plea on many issues, but there are one or two areas where more might be achievable now.
First, the UK has a responsibility to step up its leadership of partner nations in working with the Quad and others to apply diplomatic, economic, political and moral pressure to: bring an end to the conflict; stem the flow of arms and finance by countries such as the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Iran and Russia, using its clout to interrupt the flow of gold and rare earth minerals into the global markets, and to hold publicly to account those countries which enable this brutality to continue; and to mobilise, using military means, if possible, to provide immediate protection of civilians and humanitarian workers. Key to this is the need to make all sides in the conflict seriously and unmistakably aware that they will be accountable in the future for their actions now. Atrocities will be punished under a rule of law to which belligerents pay no regard.
Secondly, the civilian population needs urgent protection. The need for a diplomatic surge is clear, but resolutions by themselves will not bring a ceasefire or a peace that in the longer term leads to civilian rule. As I indicated earlier, we must not see a rerun of El Fasher in Tawila and El Obeid, and ultimately in Khartoum. Agencies are evidently not confident that this can be avoided without some targeted and serious interventions now.
The migration of Sudanese refugees into Europe in general, and the UK in particular, will only increase. This is a challenge that needs international partnership and co-ordination. The UK can take a more confident lead on this. If you visit Sudan, everybody you speak with is crying out for the UK, for historical reasons, to step up its power and influence. Wherever the future leads, international partners will have to attend to rebuilding infrastructure and civil society. The land will have to be de-mined and cleared of ordnance. Most concerningly, a generation of young people who are suffering now will need massive support if cycles of vengeance and violence are not to be let loose in the years to come. Generational trauma will be fearsome.
Other speakers will touch on matters that I have not had time to address, but I hope that my point is made. The humanitarian disaster, the worst in the world, cannot simply be observed from a distance. It needs concerted and determined attention and action. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate.
Lord Rook (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his tireless leadership on Sudan and for raising this debate. I first met him in a draughty circus tent at a Butlin’s holiday camp. I hasten to assure noble Lords that neither of us was employed as a redcoat; we were speakers at a conference. From that very day his powerful commitment to justice in domestic and foreign affairs has been evident.
It says a great deal about the right reverend Prelate that he has chosen to host his final debate in your Lordships’ House on this subject and that he has decided against the traditional valedictory speech so as not to distract from the subject at hand and the needs of the people of Sudan. Despite this, I am sure that all noble Lords would want me to pass on our gratitude for the right reverend Prelate’s contribution over many years and for his ministry—spiritual, political, practical and personal—which has been a blessing to us all.
The right reverend Prelate warned this House in 2024 that Sudan is far more than two generals having a scrap. His description of a forgotten war with no winners has proved tragically accurate. Sudan is now the largest humanitarian crisis on record, with millions displaced and famine taken hold in El Fasher, Kadugli and beyond. The atrocities in El Fasher, including hundreds killed recently in an attack on a hospital, show how civilians are being deliberately targeted, while neighbouring states already in deep crises shelter more than a million who are fleeing the violence.
I acknowledge His Majesty’s Government’s efforts: the 2024 London conference, subsequent ministerial meetings and the UK’s leadership at the UN Security Council. However, international focus is slipping. The absence of a contact group for ceasefire talks was a missed opportunity. The UK, working with the Quad and regional actors, can still lead the diplomatic effort that is needed to restore momentum toward peace.
The right reverend Prelate has often reminded this House of the essential role of local actors. In moments of emergency, churches, faith groups, youth groups, women’s organisations and grass-roots institutions are often the first and sometimes the only responders to the many crises and atrocities. Supporting these heroic institutions through genuinely locally led funding and holding intermediaries accountable for strengthening and building local capacity must be central to UK policy. To this end, I urge His Majesty’s Government to consider the role of strategic religious diplomacy in waging peace, to borrow a phrase from Justin Welby. Faith leaders in Sudan retain moral authority when political structures are fractured. We have seen the impact of such diplomacy in South Sudan, Mozambique and the Central African Republic. Sudan’s churches and mosques are indispensable partners for any credible peace strategy.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for speaking up once again for the voiceless. While he will be deeply missed in this House, as he has made clear, he will continue to champion the people of Sudan and fight for peace in that land. As a follower of the prince of peace, this is not just his work but his calling. It does not end at retirement. With Advent approaching, we wish him a very happy Christmas and a very peaceful retirement in every possible way.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for everything that he has done in this House and beyond and for leading us on the debate on Sudan today.
I will focus on the impact of the conflict on children, as 3.2 million children under five are expected to have suffered acute malnutrition this year, with over 770,000 of them likely to have experienced severe acute malnutrition. That is another name for famine in this world. The regions of Darfur and Kordofan remain the epicentre of a conflict where 20 areas are at immediate risk of famine for all. Occasional fragile truces are broken with impunity and seem to be an excuse to regroup before launching further mass killings and rapes. The humanitarian situation in El Fasher deteriorated very sharply last month. Community kitchens shut down after exhausting food supplies. Prices continue to increase, with a sack of animal fodder now used as food reported as costing over £400.
Children urgently need help from the international community to survive. Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms—grass-roots, volunteer-led, co-ordinated networks—are doing their best in the most appalling conditions to provide medical care and humanitarian assistance in areas where state services have collapsed. Charities such as Kids for Kids are working with communities in Darfur and doing all they can to ensure that protein-rich goat milk and food reach malnourished children. The charity provides goat loans. The poorest families receive five goats and after two years, once that little flock has grown, the five goats are passed on to another family to assist the children there.
Can the Minister update the House on what support the Government can give to Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms and those charities which are doing their utmost to continue their work despite the atrocities that they see around them every day of the year?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on his powerful valedictory speech and on securing this extremely important and long overdue debate. In the 14 months since our last debate on Sudan in this House, on every level the situation in Sudan has deteriorated dramatically.
As I said in the debate in September 2024, I had the privilege of working in Khartoum in 2023 with my noble friends Lord Purvis and Lord Oates. I refer to my register of interests. So much of Khartoum, as so much of Sudan, that I grew to know and love, now lies in ruins. I was privileged to work with some truly inspirational people who were working tirelessly to fight for a democratic future for Sudan. Like so many Sudanese, most of the people I worked with are now living in exile. As Samia, an eminent Sudanese lawyer and women’s rights activist, said to me this week, “The war has not only destroyed buildings and infrastructure. It has destroyed women and girls’ security and safety”.
Women and girls live under constant threat of violence on a daily basis. According to UNICEF, 12.1 million people—equivalent to 25% of the population—are at risk of gender-based violence. Hunger and rape are now routinely being used as instruments of war. There are reports that young women and even very young girls, as young as five years old, have been subjected to the most appalling violence, including sexual violence. Samia, who for me is the very personification of our previous hopes for Sudan, reminded me that what is happening in her country must never be regarded as being just about statistics. Behind every statistic is the shattered life of a human being.
What is happening in Sudan matters to us all and, frankly, should shame us all. It is our duty, as we are doing through this debate today, to raise our voices and to give the people of Sudan hope, just as it matters that the current ongoing atrocities, as the right reverend Prelate said, are fully investigated and the perpetrators eventually brought to justice.
I make three final brief points in the remaining time. We must find a way to ensure that the global arms embargo is effective, as it clearly currently is not, and to extend it to the whole of Sudan. We need to find a way to ensure that immediate humanitarian assistance reaches those who need it most. But we also need to be thinking now about longer-term assistance—clearing the country of land mines and the huge task of eventually rebuilding the country, as well as providing support for those who have suffered so much—most particularly through supporting organisations that work with women and girls.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in my allotted three minutes, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his long-standing commitment to the people of Sudan. I commend to the Minister, and ask for her response to, the first-hand report by Marcus and Tomas Ray, presented to the APPG on Sudan and dedicated to the memory of my late friend the Earl of Sandwich. Rivers of Blood – Escaping Darfur lays bare a crisis of staggering human suffering and a failure of international responsibility; of impunity; of the absence of protection mechanisms; and of global neglect. In the foreword to the report, I write:
“We cannot say we did not know. The evidence is here. The voices are here. The responsibility is ours”.
Following my own first-hand reports of earlier atrocities and genocide, there were reports in early 2023 of new outrages—and, later, of mass graves. That led to the all-party group asking me to chair a fresh inquiry, which led to our 2023 report, entitled Genocide: All Over Again in Darfur? It described the consequences of impunity and daring to think you can neglect the issue of justice. Development becomes impossible in a cauldron of repeated atrocities.
With the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, I recently sent a letter to the Foreign Secretary, copied to the Minister, along with a copy of this report, following reports that the FCDO atrocity prevention team may be disbanded. Is that so?
Last week, the Minister told me:
“The last Joint Analysis of Conflict and Stability (JACS) assessment for Sudan was completed in 2019”.
These JACS reports are supposed to be the basis of assessing whether crimes against humanity and/or genocide are either under way or probable. Post 2019 and post 2023, why was no JACS report commissioned?
Since 2001, when I first went into Sudan’s war zone, I have repeatedly warned that a culture of impunity would entrench violence and atrocities, undermine attempts to create civil institutions and political progress, and destroy or impede humanitarian initiatives. If we do not tackle root causes, it simply adds to the flow of displaced people in this world—around 125 million of them now. How many of the arrivals referred to by the right reverend Prelate arrive on small boats that originate from Sudan?
Today’s RSF atrocities in Darfur are of a piece with the Janjaweed’s systematic rape of women and the burning and looting of villages, 90% of which were razed to the ground—all driven by an ideological hatred of difference. The International Criminal Court said it was a genocide, yet Omar al-Bashir and some of the warlords now involved in today’s horrific atrocities have still not been brought to justice. Impunity is a death sentence for the innocent and a licence to kill for the perpetrators.
Wicked as the RSF and its avaricious overseas funders undoubtedly are, we are naive at best in painting the army junta and their overseas backers as benign. The jihadists in the SAF officer corps remain emphatically opposed to democracy, accountability and the rule of law. As they fight for supremacy, it is the people of their great country who are condemned to grotesque suffering.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my heartfelt gratitude goes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his leadership and contribution to this House, and I thank him for initiating this debate.
It is beyond comprehension that, in this century, we are failing to use every means available to us as a nation state to aid Sudan, which is facing this man-made—men-made—war, displacement and inhuman suffering. Thirty million innocent men, women and children are fleeing rape, death and destruction and require urgent aid, with 13 million forced from their homes and lands. Yet those engaged in this brutal war are weaponising starvation, pushing people to the brink in a conflict that is not an occupation but a power grab. Battles for political dominance are driven by power, greed and impunity, for control of Sudan’s wealth and resources.
Cities and villages that I had the honour of visiting across Sudan no longer exist. Health, education systems and societal infrastructures lie in rubble, just as in Gaza. It is as though the perpetrators of this inhuman suffering are beyond reproach and international rules are no longer applicable.
As the UN Security Council penholder for Sudan, the United Kingdom has diplomatic obligations and a unique responsibility to help forge a path toward relief and resolution. I believe that it is our Government who must stand with courage and duty to rally our allies and bring this barbaric war to an end, just as our Prime Minister has led the international coalition of the willing for Ukraine. Does the Minister agree that this excellent model of the coalition of the willing can be applied to confront the catastrophic degradation of Sudan? If such coalitions can be built to defend sovereignty and human rights in Europe, can the UK lead to defend the very same in Africa?
Words are not enough. What actions beyond pledges are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure the safe, unimpeded delivery of aid across Sudan in partnership with allies such as the African Union and the UN in order to strengthen the humanitarian corridor and speed up the provision of food, emergency medical supplies and shelter to civilians in areas where famine risks are highest and where women and children continue to face the gravest danger?
Impunity has emboldened perpetrators and intensified the war as it continues. For Sudan to have any hope of peace, accountability must accompany rescue and aid. How are the UK Government working to deter further violence while pushing for a sustained ceasefire and a credible political process that places civilians, not armed groups, at the centre of Sudan’s future?
I had the privilege and honour of taking part in women-led peace initiatives in Sudan. I do not know where those women are or whether they are alive. The people of Sudan are not asking for charity; they are entitled to basic food, shelter, safety and dignity.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
In view of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, this debate should focus on the situation in Sudan, but I share the views expressed by all previous speakers about his role in the House and in helping the people of Sudan.
I want to ask about a recent development which arose from the G20 summit in Johannesburg last week, where the world’s leaders issued a joint declaration calling for
“a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in Sudan”.
They grouped Sudan with other major conflict areas—Ukraine, Congo, and Palestine—signalling that the crisis is now considered a top-tier global priority. The statement emphasised that any path to peace should follow the purposes and principles of the UN charter, and it reaffirmed a broad condemnation of terrorism. My question is, while this is clearly welcome, is it something of substance or is it largely symbolic? The statement did not spell out any concrete measures such as specific funding timelines or accountability mechanisms or which countries would lead the campaign that was laid out. No new sanctions or targeted diplomatic initiatives were announced within the publicly released text.
Still, the inclusion of Sudan in the G20 communiqué elevates international attention at this time of crisis. What follow-up do our Government envisage following the G20 delegation and will it have a meaningful impact in securing the just peace that we all desire?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for securing this debate and for his contribution over many years, and I wish him all the best for the future.
I vividly remember the Rwandan genocide. As a young journalist in country Australia in the age before the internet, the postman delivered my paper-thin copy of the Guardian Weekly. I can still picture some of the images it printed, images that shocked me. Then, the diplomatic world knew what was happening and failed to act, but the general public broadly did not. Communications operated differently then. Since then, our understanding of mass atrocity crimes has grown a great deal, in part because of the genocide against the Tutsis. We can and do predict them, but where we have not advanced is in action to prevent them. At the briefing last week that the right reverend Prelate referred to, I heard about the events in El Fasher. They were described as the most well-worn and predicted mass killing in human history. We have satellite images that can identify where each individual human being lost their life—a father, a son, a brother, a mother who is now a bloodstain in the sand—and we have images that show where those bodies were burned or buried. Before that, we had satellite images that showed the preparation for massacre, the building of the berm around the city that created the killing field and the assembling of the forces to commit the massacre in a city in which perhaps 1.5 million people were cowering, and the world still did nothing.
This debate is focused on humanitarian need, and my focus is particularly on the protection of those who remain alive but at acute risk. The right reverend Prelate referred to a script for future massacres based on what has happened already. Our job, surely, is to cut off that script to stop it being played out.
We heard at that briefing about effective leadership. Britain should have a role, and effective leadership can come only from No. 10, from Sir Keir Starmer. Will the Minister say whether we going to see that leadership? We know that traditional multilateral fora are of limited use, so we need much more creative approaches. Are resources—the atrocity prevention unit, the FCDO and other resources available to the Government—being put into the diplomatic surge that was called for last week?
I will just pick up two very quick further points. One, of course, is on the now sadly inevitable reports of conflict-related sexual violence. What support are those victims going to get? The other relates to a scoping visit from the Mines Advisory Group in July this year. We have real capacity in Britain in mine clearing and dealing with unexploded ordnance. What are the Government doing in that area?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, Nick Baines, on securing this debate. He has been a tireless supporter of Sudan, even almost endangering his life as he visited that troubled area, and he is also a faithful servant of Church, state and the world.
I declare an interest in that from November 2021 until June 2023 I was chair of Christian Aid. Christian Aid has been deeply engaged in the region. For context, the charity says:
“We are providing some support for the church agency humanitarian response being jointly led by our sister agency, Norwegian Church Aid, and CAFOD. Also via our German sister agency DKH we have been supporting the emergency rooms in Sudan—a mutual aid initiative that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize”.
There is a UK dimension to the crisis in so far as the Government have been reluctant to challenge UAE support for the RSF or Saudi Arabia’s support for the Government in Sudan, both of which have prolonged the conflict and, because of the weapons being provided and the cover given for persistent breaches of international law, have increased civilian suffering.
Thomas Brown of the House of Lords Library published an article on 17 November on the humanitarian situation in Sudan, which says:
“Sudan’s current civil war continues to have a devastating impact on civilians, with UN agencies describing the conflict as both the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and the world’s largest displacement crisis. Amid reports of ongoing atrocities in and around El Fasher in Sudan’s Darfur region and continuing hostilities elsewhere, the UK has been involved in diplomatic efforts calling for an end to the conflict and has increased funding for emergency humanitarian assistance”.
In light of the passing of a UK-drafted resolution by the UN Human Rights Council securing international consensus for an urgent UN inquiry into alleged crimes in El Fasher, because impunity cannot be the outcome of these horrifying events, will the Minister please tell us how far the promise of the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to get teams into Sudan to investigate those atrocities and hold the perpetrators to account has got? Our words must be matched by our actions. We must become peacemakers, not peace lovers.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as CEO of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. I join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for initiating this debate and for his strong advocacy for Sudan during his years in this House.
Previous speakers have set out the scale of the crisis that has engulfed ordinary people in Sudan. I will not repeat all the devastating statistics but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I want to highlight the figure of over 770,000 children facing severe acute malnutrition this year. The sheer scale of that tragedy can obscure the horrific suffering that it entails for every child impacted. When you have witnessed a child suffering from severe acute malnutrition, it never leaves you. Nor does the sense of guilt and despair that, despite the availability of proven and cost-effective treatments, a lack of funding or impeded humanitarian access means that tens of thousands of children who could recover will not.
Yesterday, a number of us had the chance to meet the Minister and representatives of the Emergency Response Rooms, whose 26,000 courageous volunteers across Sudan are providing a localised humanitarian response to the crisis, often able to gain access where international organisations cannot. They had two main requests: to be afforded protection and recognition as humanitarian workers—over the past two years, they told us, 146 of their volunteers have been killed and many more detained or disappeared—and for funding to meet the scale of the need that they encounter.
We have heard the argument in the past that the challenge in Sudan is access rather than funding. However, while access is a challenge in many areas, the lack of funding is a challenge in all areas. We know that more funding is needed for emergency responses, such as the provision of therapeutic foods to treat acute malnutrition, and it is required to provide agricultural support to smallholders to help to restore food production, yet the Food and Agricultural Organization’s appeal is just 10% funded. We know that it is needed to provide support to the millions of refugees displaced to refugee camps in neighbouring countries and within Sudan, which are massively underfunded.
We should work with our partners to provide that support for reasons of basic humanity, but we should also note the costs of not doing so. We have already seen a 60% increase in the numbers of Sudanese nationals arriving on small boats, and Sudanese nationals represent the most common nationality detected irregularly in the UK.
Sudan represents not only the world’s worst humanitarian crisis but the starkest example of its inability to work collectively to end a war that is fuelling such devastating suffering. We cannot resolve these issues on our own, but we must do more in concert with our European partners in particular to address this humanitarian crisis and to impose real consequences on those countries that are fuelling the war.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
I am grateful to noble Lords for ignoring the request from my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leeds that this should not be a valedictory debate for him. His contribution to this House, and to the Church and nation more widely, has been immense. However, I sincerely hope that this House and His Majesty’s Government will not ignore the right reverend Prelate’s words regarding Sudan, something which is very dear to his heart.
I want to focus my comments on the funding of local partners in Sudan. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, in its October 2025 report, found that the UK Government
“in many instances demonstrated credible political leadership and strong convening power, drawing on deep networks that are valued by stakeholders”.
It also finds that the UK has shown
“political and operational leadership in the humanitarian response, through strong technical analysis, evidence-based planning and close coordination with key UN agencies”.
I congratulate the Government on this positive analysis of their role in the crisis, yet the report goes on to state:
“Despite stated political ambition, the UK’s cautious approach to localisation and limited resources constrain the full potential of local partnerships”.
Across Sudan, local actors, in particular first responders, such as Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, remain under-supported. These groups often have the capacity to provide more cost-effective and contextually grounded responses than international partners, but they face significant barriers to accessing funding due to stringent UK compliance requirements or those of intermediary organisations. The UK commitment to localisation has not translated into more predictable or better-quality funding for local partners in Sudan. The UK funding that reaches them is generally for small-scale, short-term projects. Given the access constraints that INGOs face, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any intention to review our approach to funding local partners in Sudan?
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for raising this urgent Question and for his long-standing moral leadership, as he prepares to retire from this House. I know that he is not going to give up everything else that he has been doing and will plan to do. I thank him so much for everything he has done for us. I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security.
Women and girls are bearing a disproportionate share of the burden in Sudan. This has been going on for decades—far too long. Malnutrition among mothers leads to malnutrition among infants. When hunger becomes a weapon of war, as it clearly has in Sudan, the impact is generational. The UK has not yet ratified the 2019 amendment to the Rome statute, which would criminalise starvation tactics in non-international armed conflict. If we are serious about accountability, we must lead by example. Ratifying this amendment would send a clear signal that starvation crimes will not be ignored.
As we have a short time to speak today, I will make three points to the Government. First, the protection of civilians and safe humanitarian access must be at the centre of all diplomatic engagement. Without this, the crisis will continue to deepen regardless of the aid provided. Secondly, our humanitarian assistance should prioritise nutrition-specific interventions, including ready-to-use therapeutic food for severely malnourished children, and support for pregnant and lactating women. These are proven, cost-effective interventions that save lives. Thirdly, we must keep accountability on the agenda. The atrocities in Darfur and Kordofan, including starvation crimes and sexual violence, must be investigated, documented and prosecuted.
Justice will be essential for a long-term peace. As far as peace is concerned, women, including local women, must be at the peace table. Unless we have that, we will not have peace. It must include having women to discuss education, development and the future of their country.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the right reverend Prelate for tabling this debate. Earlier this year, the UN reported an 80% increase in the risk of women and girls in Sudan being the victims of sexual assault. They are suffering indescribably from flagrant daily rape, sexual slavery and torture, with children being forced to watch the abuse of their mothers, and even vice versa—all with impunity.
The UK has been a global leader in campaigning against sexual violence in conflict. Together with our position as penholder for Sudan at the Security Council, we have an unprecedented responsibility to step up even more than we have already. The UNFPA is the UN agency responsible for promoting sexual and reproductive health. Across Sudan, it has provided 51 safe spaces for survivors of sexual violence, as well as dozens of mobile health teams. Yet these centres are no longer always safe havens, with over 540 attacks on health facilities reported over the last two years. Supplies and equipment are frequently looted, and health workers, patients and ambulances have been targeted with violence and intimidation.
The UNFPA receives no funding whatever from the UN’s regular budget. It is funded entirely through voluntary contributions from Governments, intergovernmental organisations, the private sector, foundations and individuals. Yet unprecedented funding cuts by many leading donors, notably the United States, are jeopardising the health and lives of hundreds of thousands of women and girls.
Training for front-line medical workers has also been halted, leaving thousands of women without access to safe spaces that provide medical, legal and psychosocial support. The UNFPA is calling for $120 million for its work in Sudan. In the Northern State, its programmes and safe spaces are funded by Canada, the European Union, Japan, Norway and Sweden. Will the Minister ensure that the UK is added to this list of contributors to the UNFPA with immediate effect? As penholder, this will put maximum pressure on other member states to do likewise. We have a very positive track record indeed of insisting on accountability for sexual violence in conflict in our role as penholder for Colombia. Please let us do the same for the women and girls in Sudan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
From all our interactions on Sudan, the right reverend Prelate knows how highly I regard him. I thank him for bringing this debate as he ends his service in this House. The Minister is also aware of what I called for last week. I hope she has read my appeal to the Leader of the House yesterday evening in my response to the Prime Minister’s G20 Statement, in which Sudan warranted only a passing reference.
In recent weeks and days, anyone seeing what has been happening in the country I love will have witnessed the very worst and the very best of humanity, with calls for a cessation of violence ridiculed by the SAF and the re-emergence of the repressive internal intelligence service, NISS, and Islamist forces, and the RSF cynically saying it has a ceasefire while committing atrocities. At the same time, we have seen Sudanese doctors trying, under incredible personal danger, to keep medical facilities going and, as we heard, local emergency rooms and community kitchens of local civilians keeping a semblance of food services going under literally hellish conditions and threat. They are the best of humanity in the face of the worst.
As we have heard, the main victims are women and children. Some of the examples of the atrocities are searing. Foreign supplied drones, paid for by looted natural resources, are as we speak over the skies of civilian areas collecting intelligence and data, and will be armed to target civilians.
Tools to protect civilians have been authorised by the UN Security Council resolution of over a year ago. It is simply the case that the will for action has been and continues to be absent. Today, I press the Minister for a specific, authorised and deliverable action to put in measures to create no-drone zones in civilian areas. We have the capability, the technology and the authorisation to protect civilians. We need the political and diplomatic will to enable this to be put in place—and it is urgent.
Even here at home—the Minister is well aware of my calls last year, well before we saw the preventable atrocities—and even now, after lengthy correspondence that I have had with the Disasters Emergency Committee, we still do not have a public appeal matched by the Government. The world’s worst humanitarian crisis—urgent and pressing—does not have sufficient public and media awareness to trigger an appeal, the chief executive told me. I appeal to the Minister today to speak to the DEC, to appeal to the DEC and to work with the DEC to have a public appeal that the Government can support.
I am still hopeful for the day when the rightful civilian democratic governance of Sudan can be seen. I hope for there to be one Sudan, where diversity is recognised and not used as a pretext for violence. But for that hope not to be entirely extinguished, we need the UK and others to step up with leadership, focus and urgency. Protecting the civilians is by far the most urgent task, and I hope we can hear of concrete actions from the Government.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his service to the House, for securing this important debate and for his excellent valedictory speech. We had quite a lot of interaction and debate during the Brexit years, when he was the Church of England’s spokesman. It is fair to say that we did not often agree on this subject, but he always conducted himself with great courtesy and had his say robustly, which is as it should be. I used to dream I was hearing his words in my sleep, until I realised that it was just because my radio alarm had switched on early and I was listening to him on Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day” programme. I hope he will continue to contribute to that.
As many noble Lords have said, the situation in Sudan is absolutely appalling. As many people have reminded us, we have had a number of opportunities to discuss the issues relating to the conflict in recent weeks, in Oral Questions, a ministerial Statement and now this debate. That demonstrates the level of concern felt across your Lordships’ House about the situation.
Given the short time that I have—I know we all want to hear from the Minister—I will confine my remarks to a few brief points. Save the Children estimates that 450 unaccompanied children have arrived in Tawila, the nearest safe town to El Fasher. We have previously discussed getting aid into Sudan. What steps are being taken to get aid to the towns where those refugees are starting to gather, including Tawila, as urgently as possible?
Last week the Minister noted the dangers associated with air drops of aid, which I am sure we can all appreciate, but can she update the House on the further work that her department has done to ensure that progress is being made to get aid where it needs to be? I think the whole House would benefit from an update on the amount of aid that has been able to reach those in Sudan to date. We are all very aware of the practical difficulties around that.
On weapons and equipment in Sudan, the noble Baroness confirmed last week that the reports of British-made equipment being used in Sudan have been investigated, and the equipment in question is not munitions but items related to engines. Can she commit to keeping this situation under review? Should there be verified reports of British-made munitions being used in Sudan, will she come to the House to report on that further?
I think I speak for the whole House when I say that the people of Sudan are constantly in our thoughts. In particular, I sincerely hope that the UK Government will continue to play a full and complete role—as supportive as possible of those desperate people in need—to get aid to all who need it in the region.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I too start by saying how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for tabling this debate. I pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to Sudan and its people. I know that, rightly and characteristically, he wants our focus today to be firmly on the people of Sudan, but I take this opportunity to wish him and his wife Linda a long and happy retirement. It is notable that the Archbishop of Sudan chose to join him at Ripon Cathedral for a recent service. That is testament to his long-standing commitment to and very strong relationship with the people of Sudan.
I note the deep concern from right across the House about the dire humanitarian situation in Sudan, at a time when we must galvanise action to stop the war and end the suffering. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his remarks. He asked me about the diversion of arms. Of course, I commit to keeping this matter closely under review and to reporting back to the House immediately should the situation change. I am happy to speak to the DEC, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggests. On the issue of creating no-drone zones, I do not know how we would do that, but I am very happy to explore that.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rook, Lord Alton, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Oates, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay, Lady Suttie, Lady Uddin, Lady Bennett, Lady Goudie and Lady Coussins, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for their contributions. Everybody spoke with outstanding experience, passion and knowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked me about the UNFPA. We are the largest contributor to core funding for the UNFPA, and she asked whether that would change in light of the change in position of some of our partners and allies towards the work that it does. It is more vital than ever that we maintain our commitment to it for the reasons that she so eloquently put forward.
I have not yet read the Rivers of Blood report, but I will. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we cannot say that we did not know. We now need a way to force the warring parties to stop. As of today, both the leaders in command in Sudan still believe that they can win. I will speak to all the other issues around humanitarian access but, until that changes, I do not think we will see the stable peace or ceasefire that we desperately need.
As many have said, Sudan is facing the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Some 12 million people have fled their homes in the world’s largest displacement crisis; 30 million people are in urgent need of aid, the highest number on record; famine and preventable disease are rampant; and women and children are bearing the brunt of terrible suffering and abhorrent violence.
Following the RSF assault on El Fasher, we have seen horrendous atrocities: mass executions, starvation, rape and reports of detentions, kidnap and killings as people attempt to escape. The threat of further horror looms, as fighting moves towards Tawila and North Kordofan. Preventing further massacres and ending the brutal siege is urgent, as is providing humanitarian relief. The need has never been greater, yet aid remains blocked. The RSF refuses to allow safe passage to humanitarian organisations, while the SAF has introduced new bureaucratic restrictions that will impede relief efforts even more.
Ongoing fighting, devastated infrastructure and crimes against humanitarian workers are compounding all these challenges. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has rightly underlined, the suffering will only increase without a complete step change to bring about peace. To that end, we are doing all we can to support the efforts of the Quad, as the United States, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We note the RSF’s announcement on Monday, agreeing to a three-month humanitarian truce. Of course, we welcome any commitment to peace, yet these words must be measured by actions on the ground.
On 14 November, we secured a special session of the UN Human Rights Council, which passed the UK-drafted resolution securing an urgent UN inquiry into reported crimes in El Fasher. This ramps up the pressure on the warring parties to unblock critical aid routes and hold perpetrators to account, but we must do more. Last week, the Foreign Secretary met Tom Fletcher, the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, following his visit to Sudan. He emphasised the need to guarantee safe passage for civilians and humanitarian workers trying desperately to reach people in need, as a matter of urgency. We are doing everything in our power to press for a three-month humanitarian truce that truly stops the violence on the ground and gets life-saving aid in.
Meanwhile, UK aid continues to make a difference on the ground, difficult though that is. Since the beginning of the conflict, our support to Sudan has reached 2.5 million people. Last year alone, we treated over 98,000 children for malnutrition and reached almost 750,000 people with clean water. We got emergency cash assistance to 71,000 people who have suffered appalling violence. But noble Lords will know that this is not enough.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear that the UK will remain a key humanitarian partner in Sudan and that funding to those areas affected by the crisis will be protected for the next three years. The UK will fulfil its duty diplomatically, at the UN and through multilateral processes and bilaterally with our allies and partners, including in contact with the United States and the UAE. Six months ago, the UK convened the London Sudan conference, raising over £800 million. We announced £120 million in new funding to reach over 650,000 people with life-saving assistance this year alone. That is in addition to the £36 million that I announced in May, during my visit to the Chad border to support refugees and the countries hosting them.
Following the assault on El Fasher, we mobilised and refocused £23 million in emergency aid, with the Foreign Secretary announcing a further £5 million on 1 November. Yet no amount of funding can end what is a man-made crisis. Every route, border and crossing must be open and safe. By 2029, we want at least 30% of the UK’s aid for Sudan to be distributed by local responders who provide a lifeline for communities that are hardest to reach.
I want to thank the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sudan and South Sudan for inviting me to join it this week. Together, we thanked the delegation from the Sudanese Emergency Response Rooms. As several noble Lords have said, they are an incredibly effective and impressive organisation and it is right that they are receiving the 2025 Chatham House Prize for their life-saving work in unimaginably challenging circumstances. However, they do not just want thanks; they want peace.
Lastly, I make one personal reflection on this desperate crisis that shocks, saddens and shames us every day that it continues. I mentioned my visit to the remote town of Adré, on the border in eastern Chad. In the refugee camp, as well as talking to aid workers, I met women who had fled for their lives. In my conversations with them—one a trainee doctor, another a qualified psychologist, forced to flee their homes and living in tents on the border—it was clear that all they wanted was their old lives back, their jobs and families, a future for their children, their safety and their independence. We must never lose sight of that. Support for the people of Sudan will remain a priority for this Government, as I know it does for the whole House.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Definition of modern slavery exploitation: orphanage trafficking(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“Orphanage trafficking(7) The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, the proposed new clause in my Amendment 247A would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking. One privilege, and benefit, of being a Member of this House—or indeed of the other—is the fascinating people whom one meets and finding out about issues that I do not think everybody would always understand.
It was only last week at the annual general meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery that I discovered that, during the passage of this Bill in the other place, my right honourable friend Dame Karen Bradley and Sarah Champion had put down an amendment, which is being mirrored here, about orphanage trafficking. That had not come across my radar, even though I have been—I declare my interest—the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. As I say, it was not something that I had been aware of, so I tabled this amendment. By some chance, earlier this week, I met Dame—no, not Dame, sorry, I have elevated her; I met Claire Wright MBE. She is a patron of a very good charity called Hope and Homes for Children. She was talking to me about orphanage trafficking and I said that I had put down an amendment. We got into a discussion with my noble friend Lady Sugg, who I see here in her place, so she also heard about this. It just goes to show what can happen.
Orphanage trafficking is a form of child trafficking defined as
“the recruitment or transfer of children into orphanages, or any residential care facility … for a purpose of exploitation … or profit. It involves both ‘acts’ and ‘purposes of exploitation’ that meet the definition of child trafficking under the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons”.
As I have said, it is a little-known crime here in the UK, but it is estimated that around 5 million children worldwide are living in residential institutions, which exist not to help, support and educate the children but to make profits from charitable donations and something that I had not come across before called “voluntourism”—a form of tourism in which travellers participate in voluntary work. Australia has been in the lead with this and was the first country to legislate to outlaw this crime.
Child trafficking into institutions is something that has been going on and is linked to the funding of orphanages through private donations, volunteer tourism, as I have just mentioned, mission trips and other forms of fundraising. It is estimated that US Christian organisations alone donate approximately $3.3 billion to residential care each year. The popular practice of orphanage volunteering—people from high-income countries travelling abroad hoping to help children living in orphanages, with every good will in the world—also serves to provide a continual income for the orphanage as well as reduced labour costs for the care of the children. There is, however, a grim downside to this. Although often well intentioned, these sources of financial and in-kind support undermine national efforts to support broader child protection and social welfare systems by creating a parallel system without official oversight and accountability. They also create a marketplace that can incentivise the expansion of existing orphanages and the establishment of new ones, with the supply of funding and resources into orphanages increasing the demand for children to be in them.
There is evidence of children being deliberately recruited from vulnerable families to fill spaces in orphanages, under the guise of better care and access to education. Once trafficked into those orphanages, children are then vulnerable to neglect, abuse and exploitation. Orphanages that are run for profit have been found to operate under extremely poor conditions to drive down care costs, with evidence pointing to children being kept deliberately malnourished to encourage further donations, forced to interact with and perform for visitors, or forced to beg for financial donations.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lord, I focused on this new clause when I saw my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge’s name on it. When I was Opposition Chief Whip, among the many fixtures and fittings I inherited in the office was the MP for Uxbridge, John Randall. Although I was Chief Whip, I became his understudy, and to this day I follow his lead on many of the amendments he tables, particularly on biodiversity and so on. So when I saw his name, I thought, “There is something in this and I had better look at it”. My noble friend has tabled a very important amendment and put his finger on the appalling abuse of children in the world. It is a significant and widespread issue which serves as a pipeline to modern slavery and other forms of exploitation globally.
My noble friend’s proposal seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include orphanage trafficking—specifically, the recruitment of children into overseas residential care institutions purely for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation. As he said, orphanage trafficking is a form of child exploitation whereby children are deliberately separated from their families and recruited into residential care institutions, not for their welfare but to generate profit. This hidden practice is driven by greed and the profit motive, with children being used as commodities to attract charitable donations and international funding or to facilitate voluntourism. In many instances, children are not without parents but are falsely labelled as orphans to increase the institution’s appeal. The problem is as extensive as my noble friend has said.
There are an estimated 5.4 million children worldwide living in orphanages and other residential care institutions. Research consistently shows that over 80% of these children have at least one living parent. Orphanages, particularly in developing countries, are often set up and run as businesses, with the children as the “product”. Orphanage directors and “child-finders” often target poor, low-education families in rural areas, making false promises of education and a better life in exchange for the children.
The exact scale of orphanage trafficking is difficult to quantify due to a lack of data, poor government oversight of many unregistered facilities and the clandestine nature of the crime. Children in these institutions are often untracked, making them more susceptible to exploitation. The links between institutions and child trafficking have been formally recognised in recent years by the United Nations General Assembly and the US Government’s Trafficking in Persons Report, which highlights the growing international concern.
Children in these institutions face various forms of modern slavery and abuse, including financial exploitation, with the children being used to elicit donations from well-intentioned tourists and volunteers. This can involve forcing them to pose as orphans or perform for visitors, or keeping them in deliberately poor conditions to evoke sympathy. Then there is sexual exploitation—children are vulnerable to sexual abuse by staff, volunteers and organised criminal groups targeting these facilities. Then there is forced labour: children being forced to perform labour such as working on a director’s land, doing excessive domestic chores, or begging on the streets. Then there is illicit adoption: in some cases, children are recruited for the purpose of illicit, fraudulent adoption, with documentation falsified to facilitate the process and generate profit.
This is an evil trade, and it is well organised. These so-called child-finders lure families into giving up their children through deception, coercion or payment. Gatekeeping procedures are bypassed or manipulated, often by falsely declaring children as abandoned or creating fraudulent documents. The child’s identity is altered—the child’s name is changed to establish an orphan identity and make them untraceable by their biological family. The child is maintained in the institution long term for ongoing exploitation and profit generation through donations and sex tourism. My noble friend’s amendment deserves Government support.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment. As the Minister might notice, it is not intended to be dealt with under the Crime and Policing Bill but under the Modern Slavery Act. That means, in a sense, it is probably simpler for the Government to accept it, because it is an improvement to an Act of 10 years ago. I am not quite sure why, oddly enough, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and I did not think about it in those days, but it was not raised.
When I was a judge, I had the specific example of a child being put into an orphanage by their father, with the intention of a large amount of money being paid eventually for that child to be adopted. The child was in the process of being adopted in England by an American family who came to England. The whole set-up was so unsatisfactory that the child was removed and went into care. The question then was whether the child should go back to the natural parent—the father—but the problem was that he had put the child into the orphanage.
This is a very serious issue that is seriously underestimated and not well known. The very least the Government could do is to amend the Modern Slavery Act.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Randall said, I too recently met the Hope and Homes for Children charity. This amendment helps to name, define and criminalise the form of exploitation my noble friend set out. As he said, it is often hidden behind humanitarianism or done in the name of childcare. The deception, exploitation, control and harm that children face in these institutions have all the hallmarks of modern slavery. That is why it is important not to treat it separately from modern slavery. By including it we will, I hope, help to ensure that traffickers cannot claim that they operate as charities, rather than being the exploitative institutions that they are. The amendment would help to close a legal gap and, hopefully, disrupt the financial incentives that create harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s arguments.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 247A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has laid out the case in detail.
It is a sad fact that children, some with living parents, are deliberately separated from their families and placed in residential institutions overseas. These institutions then present these children as orphans to attract donations from well-meaning supporters, often in the UK. The children become commodities: the more vulnerable they appear, the more money flows in. This is exploitation on a grand scale, masquerading as charity, and it is funded in part by British individuals and organisations who often have no idea that they are perpetuating abuse.
Amendment 247A proposes an overdue expansion of the definition of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to explicitly include orphanage trafficking. As the explanatory statement confirms, this new clause would insert a clear definition into the Act that orphanage trafficking means that
“The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation”.
Our approach throughout the Bill’s scrutiny has been to ensure that our legislation is robust and responsive and specifically targets the modern tactics of abusers and exploiters, particularly concerning vulnerable children.
The phenomenon of orphanage trafficking was not adequately understood as a distinct form of modern slavery when the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was drafted a decade ago. In recent years, however, extensive research and reporting, including by UNICEF and specialist organisations working in south-east Asia and Africa, have revealed the scale and systematic nature of this exploitation. We now know that the practice uses the guise of charitable care to perpetrate sustained abuse for profit. This is unacceptable.
By explicitly defining this conduct, Amendment 247A would ensure that the MSA 2015 is fully equipped to address this tragic global issue. We have seen the importance of such clarity throughout the Bill. Just as we have recognised that exploitation evolves, we should now acknowledge orphanage trafficking as an identifiable and compatible form of abuse. This amendment applies the same principle to this particularly insidious form of overseas exploitation.
The amendment serves three critical functions. First, it would provide legal recognition and awareness. This is a necessary first step to legally recognise orphanage trafficking in UK law. This action would raise the profile of a genuine issue that, despite being recognised in jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand, remains poorly understood here. It is time this was addressed. Australia’s experience demonstrates that legislative recognition creates public awareness and shifts provision towards sustainable, family-based care models rather than institutional placements.
Secondly, the amendment targets financial facilitators. This is the amendment’s most powerful practical effect. Adding this specific definition to the MSA 2015 would mean that individuals and organisations which provide financial support to these exploitative overseas institutions could be in breach of the Modern Slavery Act. This would allow enforcement action to be taken against them.
Thirdly, it covers international obligations and UK leadership. This amendment aligns with our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and reinforces the UK’s role in setting global standards for combating modern slavery. It demonstrates that our child protection framework extends meaningfully beyond our borders.
Supporting Amendment 247A is a necessary evolution of our anti-slavery legal framework. It would ensure that our commitment to protecting exploited children extends effectively beyond our borders and covers every known facet of trafficking, reinforcing our foundational principle that the law must protect the vulnerable from financial and criminal exploitation.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should be upheld at every level. We hope the Government will support this amendment in order to protect innocent, vulnerable children from this very distressing practice.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I too support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is my privilege, as I travel around the world visiting Anglican provinces, often to visit orphanages and see some of the work they do. As noble Lords have already said, many of these children still have a living parent somewhere, but that parent, for whatever reason, no longer feels able or wishes to look after them, particularly if the mother has died in childbirth.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on Amendment 247A. I had the fortune of meeting Claire Wright over a year ago, and she explained to me what Hope and Homes for Children was doing as a charity. I too was bowled over by it, because it was an area that I did not have much knowledge of. She and the organisation have done amazing work. While this may be out of scope of the Bill, the one suggestion I make to the Minister is that he could bring together a round table of Ministers from relevant government departments to listen to Claire Wright and Hope and Homes for Children, so that their good work can be shared and built on.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for bringing forward this important amendment. It would ensure that this House does not overlook emerging and deeply troubling patterns of abuse that fall outside traditional definitions.
The amendment seeks to expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who are recruited into residential care institutions overseas for the purpose of financial gain, commonly referred to as orphanage trafficking. As my noble friend highlighted, this is a practice that too often disguises itself as humanitarian intervention, while in fact it enables systematic exploitation and harm. Many so-called orphanages operate as profit-making enterprises, intentionally separating children from families and communities to attract funding and donations. The children involved may be subject to physical and emotional abuse, forced labour or trafficking into other forms of exploitation.
It is right that we recognise the growing international call to confront this practice and that we consider whether our legislative framework needs strengthening to support that effort. Ensuring that the Modern Slavery Act accurately reflects contemporary forms of exploitation is a legitimate objective, and I commend my noble friend for shining a spotlight on an issue that has far too long remained in the shadows.
We are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment and welcome the opportunity it provides to examine how the UK can play a stronger role in protecting vulnerable children globally. At the same time, we look forward to hearing from the Minister about the practical implications of such a change and how it might interact with existing powers and international co-operation mechanisms. I hope the Government will engage constructively with the concerns he has raised, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short but vital debate on an issue, which, speaking personally, I was not tremendously well aware of before looking at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many noble Lords have commented that it is the hard work of people such as Claire Wright and others that has brought to light this pernicious activity or—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—this evil trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has explained, Amendment 247A seeks to include so-called orphanage trafficking within the meaning of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act. I know the noble Lord has concerns about modern slavery and trafficking in his wider work. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for highlighting this evil activity and the wider concerns around modern slavery.
As the noble Lord described, in our case, concerns about orphanage tourism would be about volunteers from the UK visiting orphanages overseas, fuelling this activity and contributing to a cycle of harm and exploitation of children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made a very relevant point: a lot of it is done in good faith. However, it can be undermined and exploited by those who are acting in bad faith.
I make it very clear to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the Opposition Front Bench—that the Government share the same concerns. That is why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides travel advice warning British nationals of the risk of volunteering with children and highlighting how volunteer visitors may unknowingly contribute to child exploitation and trafficking. The advice that the FCDO gives signposts travellers to the global standard for volunteering, which helps organisations provide responsible volunteering. By adopting the global standard, organisations commit to promoting child-safe volunteering in all environments, which includes not facilitating visits to orphanages or other institutional care facilities.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the specific vulnerabilities of children and encompasses the exploitation of children for the provision of services of any kind and to enable someone to acquire benefits of any kind, including financial gain. Therefore, orphanage trafficking is already captured by the broad terms of the existing legislation. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, anticipated that that may be the tenor of my contribution.
I point out to noble Lords that on 16 July this year, the Home Office launched a public call for evidence on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, and the Home Office is now analysing responses received. A report summarising the key findings and themes from the call for evidence responses will be published in due course. Of course, the Home Office will consider the evidence gathered to explore any further changes that can be made to improve the identification of victims.
We are seeking to introduce new modern slavery legislation as part of our efforts to review and improve the modern slavery system. This new legislation will enable us to clearly articulate the UK’s responsibilities under international law regarding modern slavery, allowing us to reduce opportunities for misuse while ensuring the right protection for those who need it.
I make no commitments here to your Lordships’ Committee, but that may well be to an opportunity to revisit some of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, floated the suggestion of a wider round table; I will certainly take that back to colleagues and discuss it.
For the reasons I have outlined about Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act already capturing orphanage trafficking in the broad terms, we do not believe it is necessary to amend Section 3 any further, as the conduct in question is already captured. In light of this explanation, and hoping that it does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and other noble Lords too much, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, one of the many benefits of this place is having people who know much more than I do about a subject and who are certainly much more eloquent. Everybody who spoke after me fit that description. It was extremely good to have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointing out that it is not every orphanage, and so forth.
However, it is an important issue. My friend—I call her that because we work very closely together—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right: we did not spot this in our debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act, but that is because modern slavery in all its forms is always developing; the traffickers and exploiters are always looking at something new.
I am very grateful for what the Minister said. If I could predict the lottery numbers as well as I can predict ministerial responses, I would be a very rich man. We will come back to this, not necessarily in this Bill, but we should be looking at it. It would be good if we could perhaps at some stage get a Minister—they are very busy at the moment with this Bill and goodness knows how many other things—to meet the lady we mentioned and others, just to get an idea of the scale of it. But there is so much of this exploitation—we have only to look at Ukraine and the children who are being trafficked into Russia. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs: timescaleWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commence the work of the Independent Commission on Grooming Gangs by—(a) appointing a Chair,(b) publishing the inquiry’s terms of reference,(c) appointing a Minister with the sole task of overseeing the inquiry and related activities, and(d) directing the inquiry’s hearings to begin.”
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, there is a dismal pattern in our country in response to serious failings of the state. First, we see denials and cover-ups, then the issue gains traction, but shock and outrage quickly follow. Calls for something to be done are heard but too often are followed by absolutely nothing—more delay, while victims are relegated to yesterday’s newspapers and the news cycle moves on. Unfortunately, the rape gang issue is a classic example of this pattern.
Victims deserve so much better from us than this. Has anyone else noticed that it has gone eerily quiet? Where is the national statutory inquiry promised by the Government? The Minister said earlier, in his responses in Oral Questions, that it was coming “very soonly”, and I give him credit for inventing another euphemism which even I have not heard before. But seriously, it is conspicuous by its absence. Neither the public nor the victims know when it is going to start or who is going to chair it and, because so many victims have lost confidence in the Safeguarding Minister in the other place, Jess Phillips, which Minister is going to oversee it. Perhaps it will be our Minister, in which case I am sure we will welcome that.
This is the reason behind my tabling of Amendments 247B and 535A. They are straightforward and designed simply to ensure that the grooming gangs inquiry begins at long last. The amendments are not designed to dictate the outcome, set the scope or limit its independence. We need it for one simple reason, which is to ensure that the state does not continue to mistreat those victims, who have already suffered so much by its collective failure.
I recognise that it is perhaps not conventional and may even be novel to legislate for the start date of an inquiry, and I anticipate that the Minister will say this when he comes to respond. However, I implore him to take this seriously. We have a position in this House and we should use it for this end. We should be speaking up for these girls and women who have been let down so shockingly. The very least we can do is to send the signal to the victims that we are not going to continue failing them and we are going to get justice for them.
What is more—I speak as a former Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—I am sure the Minister will recognise what I am about to say: providing a deadline focuses minds and drives action and activity in all parts of the system, whether the delays are accidental or bureaucratic or, in fact, unfortunately, intentional. I also remind the Minister that, in the words of the famous sage, if you keep doing what you have always done, you are going to keep getting what you have always got—no action.
We should remember that some of the survivors at the heart of this scandal have been waiting 20 years or even longer. Fiona Goddard first reported her abuse to police in 2012. She was a child when the crimes were committed against her in the mid-2000s. She told her story, took the risk, trusted the system and, as she puts it, was met with silence, closed doors and disbelief. When she was asked recently how it felt to wait this long, she said, “It’s like living with a wound that’s never allowed to close, because every year I’m told justice will come but every year nothing begins”. The victims have to keep reliving the trauma, but nothing moves forward. Hope is being postponed, year after year. We know that the only thing worse than being failed by institutions once is being failed by them twice, thrice and more. As one survivor said, “We do not need perfection. We just need to know that somebody has finally begun the work”.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the proposed new clauses in my Amendments 271C, 271D and 271E. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Maclean on her excellent amendments. She also has the advantage of that wonderful name of the great Highland clan the Macleans of Duart, which I used to have myself.
I was inspired to table my amendments when I read properly the brilliant but frightening report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock. I had skim-read the media reports and the government comments on it when it was published, but it was not until recently, when I read the report properly, that I had confirmed to me the full horror of the conspiracy by those in lawful authority who had covered up child rape for the last 30 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said in blunt terms what we all knew was the case but were afraid to say in case we were accused of racism or Islamophobia. We could all see from the various court convictions that 90% of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslim males and the victims were almost exclusively young white girls.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, pointed out that around 500,000 children a year are likely to experience sexual abuse of some kind. The police recorded data shows just over 100,000 offences of child sexual abuse and exploitation recorded in 2024, with around 60% of these being contact offences. We know that the sex crimes reported to the police are just the tip of the iceberg. The national police data confirms that the majority of victims of child sexual exploitation are girls—78% in 2023. The most common age for victims is between 10 and 15 years-old—57% are between 10 and 15 years old, for God’s sake. Putting that together suggests that, of just those reported to the police, we have at least 60,000 little children every year being victims of contact sexual abuse—and what an intriguing term that is. Let us start calling it out for what it really is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“That term ‘group-based child sexual exploitation’ is actually a sanitised version of what it is. I want to set it out in unsanitised terms: we are talking about multiple sexual assaults committed against children by multiple men on multiple occasions; beatings and gang rapes. Girls having to have abortions, contracting sexually transmitted infections, having children removed from them at birth”.
These children were not abused by these Pakistani rape gangs. They were raped, raped and raped again by people who believed that the girls who were not Muslim were just prostitutes, deserving to be raped. Therefore, I say that “child abuse” is far too mild a term to describe the evil of what is happening. Abuse can expand over a wide range. It can be heavy smacking, not feeding a child property or failing to give love, care and attention. These things are bad in themselves, but we must make sure that we use the right terminology when talking about rape and sexual assault.
That is why I have tabled the proposed new clause in my Amendment 271C. The important words in it are “investigating authority”. Of course, after investigation, if the police find evidence of rape or sexual assault, the accused will be charged with those specific offences. The CPS will also use those correct terms. However, we have seen, time and time again, that the police, in their initial statements, say they are investigating “child abuse” and have a person or persons in custody with regard to “child abuse”. That is what the media are told and that is the message we get on our screens and in the press. By the time the police eventually say the person or persons have been charged with rape, the damage has been done. We all relax somewhat: just a bit of abuse, nothing to worry about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“That is why I want the legislation on rape tightened up so that an adult having penetrative sex with a child under 16 is rape, no excuses, no defence. I believe many jaws across the country would drop if it was widely known that doing so is called anything but that”.
I am pleased to see that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower have tabled Amendment 271B, which does exactly that. My proposed new clause is complementary, in a way: if a person is under investigation for child rape, let the police say that at the outset and not give the impression that it is something lesser.
The new clause proposed in my Amendment 271D sets out details on the full and proper investigation of historical child sexual abuse. I have used the commonly used term “historical”, but I do not like it either: it gives the impression that it is something way in the distant past, like the Battle of Waterloo. The proper terminology would be, “investigation of past child sexual abuse cases which were not properly investigated at the time”, since that is what we are talking about. It is not a very sexy title, but that is the reality.
I know that the National Crime Agency is looking at some of these past cases, and nearly 1,300 previously closed investigations involving allegations of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation are currently being reviewed in Operation Beaconport, but my proposed new clause gives them wider authority.
We have all heard about Rochdale, Rotherham, Aylesbury and Telford, but there are at least 30 local authorities where child rape by gangs took place. Apparently, 23 police forces have submitted cases to the NCA, and the Met itself is looking at 9,000 cases. However, it seems that the NCA is looking only at police forces, when the conspiracy to not investigate and to cover up was led in many cases by elected councillors, local authorities and children’s homes.
I quote the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, again:
“I met many victims of child sexual exploitation when I conducted the inspection of Rotherham Council in 2016. I was outraged, shocked and appalled at their treatment—not only at the hands of their vile abusers, but at the treatment afforded them by those who were supposedly there to help, and to be accountable, such as their police force and their council. Those responsible in Rotherham denied any wrongdoing and tried to shirk accountability”.
She went on to say that
“I assumed we would all wake up to the fact that these were abused children and it would mean that the police, councils, health and other agencies would do their damnedest to make sure these victims were given as much care, respect and chance at justice as possible”.
Note her words: she thought that not just the police but
“councils, health and other agencies would do their damnedest”
to stop it, but they did not. In fact, we have seen from many cases that councils, councillors and their staff did their damnedest to conspire with some police forces to turn a blind eye, reduce and drop charges and cover up. The excuse was not to offend community relations and prosecute the mainly Pakistani men doing the raping.
So it is essential that the NCA, since there is no one better qualified to do it, has the powers in my proposed new clause to investigate all persons in lawful authority in the organisations I list in proposed new subsections (1) and (5), not just the police. These are
“staff of local authorities of whatever rank … elected council members of local authorities … police officers of all ranks … any police support staff … owners or managers of homes for children in care”.
Of course, the proposed new clause gives the NCA powers to get all papers and emails and sets penalties for any person trying to obstruct its inquiries.
Finally, the new clause proposed in my Amendment 271E is on offences and penalties. I need not go through them all, but I have listed eight different offences, ranging from failure to investigate and dismissing charges improperly up to and including bribes or sexual favours and the conspiracy to cover everything up.
I did not conjure these up from thin air: all these suggested offences are based on reports of crime cases and convictions, and these were allegations made in court and accepted as truthful—but then nothing was done about them. The persons were convicted of child rape or sexual assault, but then no one investigated the police or the council officers who failed to investigate or covered it up, and we have tens of thousands of cases which never got to court because of failures of investigation and good cover-ups.
Where any of these people were acting alone, I suggest a sentence of up to 10 years. However, where there was a conspiracy, with any of these people acting in concert to commit any of the offences in my list, the only penalty, in my opinion, can be up to life imprisonment. This has to be separate from the offence of perverting the course of justice, where the maximum penalty is generally seven years. I think that the heaviest sentence ever given for perverting the course of justice was 12 years for someone who planted incriminating evidence on an innocent person.
There is already a power to remove all or part of a police officer’s pension if the officer has been sentenced for a crime. Then the Home Secretary can initiate a procedure. We need to make it clear that that power can be used against any police officers and local authority employees who may be convicted of any of the crimes I have listed.
Some, perhaps many, noble Lords and the Minister will say that these penalties are far too draconian. Of course, they are draconian, and they need to be. What we are looking at are some of the vilest crimes committed against children short of murder.
The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said:
“When those same girls get older, they face long-term physical and mental health impacts. Sometimes they have criminal convictions for actions they took while under coercion. They have to live with fear and the constant shadow over them of an injustice which has never been righted—the shame of not being believed. And, with a criminal justice system that can re-traumatise them all over again, often over many years. With an overall system that compounds and exacerbates the damage; rarely acknowledges its failures to victims. They never get to see those people who were in positions of power and let them down be held accountable … What makes child sexual exploitation particularly reprehensible, is that is consists of both formal and informal groups of men preying on girls, coercing, manipulating and deceiving them in pursuit of sexual gratification and power”.
News reports and inquests have detailed specific instances, such as the case of Charlotte Tetley, a survivor of the Rochdale grooming scandal who, after years of mental health struggles and self-harm, took her own life as an adult. Another victim, an anonymous woman, described having
“a lot of problems in the past, suicide attempts and drinking”
due to the abuse she suffered as a vulnerable teenager. Major studies and reports consistently find that survivors of child sexual abuse are at a significantly higher risk of suicide attempts than the general population. All those abusers have escaped any investigation or sanction and are in the same vile box as the rapists who raped all those children. They need to be investigated and prosecuted and to get exemplary sentences.
I am conscious that I am exceeding the 10-minute limit, but I hope the Committee will bear with me because there a couple more minutes to go. I promise that in the next debate I will speak for less than 30 seconds.
Over the past 30 years, 60,000 girls have been raped every year. We are appalled at Ukraine, where Putin has kidnapped 20,000 people and soldiers have raped about 4,000 over the past three years.
Finally, I look forward to hearing the wise words of my noble friend Lady Cash. It was two or three years before she qualified as a barrister that we created a precedent for prosecuting and bringing to justice those who committed crimes in the past. We passed, by the Parliament Act, the War Crimes Act 1991, after this House blocked it for many good reasons. We prosecuted one person under it, a 78 year-old Belarusian SS man called Anthony Sawoniuk. He murdered 18 Jews—well, he murdered a lot more than 18 Jews, but those are the ones we got names for—and we punished him. He was convicted and given a life sentence in grade C Norwich Prison, with three meals a day and his healthcare needs taken care of, and he died peacefully at age 84. Of course, the only appropriate punishment for him would have been if he appeared at Nuremburg and was hanged with all the others. We have a precedent for going back 50 years to bring to justice a war criminal who was not even British at the time it was done, so I hope that we will accept my noble friend’s view that we need to look back at historical cases and bring them forward.
Penultimately, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, talked about taxis. I am afraid we have not got an amendment on taxis, but I want to get one. Let me conclude with these words from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey,
“one thing is abundantly clear; we as a society owe these women a debt. They should never have been allowed to have suffered the appalling abuse and violence they went through as children. This is especially so for those who were in the ‘care’ of local authorities, where the duty to protect them was left in the hands of professionals on the state’s behalf”.
These women are now in our care. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure that they get justice for the appalling crimes they suffered.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, and I shall speak to the four amendments in my name. Those are in two parts. Amendments 288A and 288B are directed to the reporting of child sexual abuse and child criminal exploitation. The purpose of the amendments is to act. We have to actually do something since we have had so many reviews and inquiries.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, to avoid any later confusion or doubt, I should explain that, on behalf of the unavoidably absent noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I will be speaking to her Amendment 284 on the mandatory reporting duty. It is in a slightly different context, as it is not in the context of grooming gangs. I will not develop it at this stage but wait until that group is reached.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 247B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seeks to advance and pre-empt the start of the work of the independent commission on grooming gangs. I would say to the noble Baroness that this process must be done properly rather than speedily, so that we can learn lessons for the future from what has happened.
To save the Minister the trouble, I will read to the noble Baroness a few morsels from the Government’s Statement, repeated here on 4 September, with which I agree:
“I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference … Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount … this process must be done properly and thoroughly … three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016”
as the chair of IICSA—that shows how difficult it can be to get the right person—
“In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors … The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review … Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels”.
Finally, the Minister said,
“we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162-63]
I agree with every word of that, and I hope all noble Lords do.
The Minister repeated some of those points only today, at Oral Questions. I wonder what it is that the noble Baroness does not agree with. I hope I can assume that we all have the same objective of obtaining justice for victims, and learning valuable lessons and doing it right, rather than soon.
Amendments 271B and 271C relate to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I worked for many weeks on that Act, and I think it was comprehensive and carefully drafted in laying out the offences. I believe that there is—I have taken very senior legal advice on this—a danger in describing offences in too much minute detail. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will agree that it can make it more difficult to secure a conviction where a conviction should be secured, because additional elements need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That could open defences which are not overall justified. I also cannot see how changing terminology would add to justice, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggests.
On Amendments 271D and 271E, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I refer him to other parts of the Statement repeated on 4 September. I am sure the Minister will assure him in response that the Government have outlined all the work that has already been started much earlier this year to investigate historical child abuse investigation failings. I will leave it to the Minister to do that.
I welcome the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about the system of mandatory reporting that we are offered in the Bill as it stands; it is simply not good enough, and we will come to a very wide debate about that in group 8. I hope that she will then add her support to amendments to improve that system tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as well as my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Featherstone and Lord Clement-Jones, and me.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly perhaps to defend the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. Quite often in your Lordships’ House, we end up with amendments that are remarkably similar, and it appears to be a trait among some of your Lordships to consider working in co-operation with others systematically a somewhat eccentric behaviour. I personally feel that it should be encouraged.
What I wanted to say is the obvious: data is king. The situation that we have allowed to evolve over the last 20 or 30 years has been allowed to happen because of a dearth of reliable and systematic collection and utilisation of data. We have allowed what has been happening—largely to these young girls, in plain sight—because we have lacked the detail and the nitty-gritty information required to nail it. In a long career in business, the thing one disliked most was awaydays when you talked about strategy, when a large number of people would devote an enormous amount of hot air to talking about this, that or the other, usually in a slightly vague way. The thing that nails that sort of debate is reliable and accurate data. It deflates the rather pompous balloon who is spouting out, apparently knowledgeably but actually probably repeating what somebody else has said—it deflates that remarkably quickly.
Very simply, we need to follow the fourth recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in her report. It is in bold and it is very brief, but it is extremely clear:
“The government should make mandatory the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all suspects in child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation cases and work with the police to improve the collection of ethnicity data for victims”.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it has been five months since the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was published. I once again extend my thanks to her for her incredible work on this. The audit laid bare the systemic failures of local government, police leadership and safeguarding structures that allowed organised grooming gangs to operate in plain sight. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found a culture of denial, a fear of being labelled racist, an unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths and a catastrophic failure to treat vulnerable young girls as victims. Her review documented how institutions minimised, dismissed or actively ignored evidence of horrific abuse. Perhaps the most sobering lesson from this is that these were not isolated failings; they were structural, cultural and tragically repeated in town after town across the country.
The national audit produced 12 recommendations. To their credit, the Government have accepted all 12, some of which have found their way into the Bill. However, unfortunately, the first and second recommendations of the audit have so far been left behind. The first recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was to change the law so that any adult who intentionally has sexual intercourse with a child under 16 receives a mandatory charge of rape. In their response to the audit, the Government said:
“Our laws must never provide protection for the adult abusers rather than the child victims of these despicable crimes. We share Baroness Casey’s view … and we accept the recommendation to change the law in this area”.
If the Government agreed with this recommendation and said that they will implement it, why have they not done so? The Bill provides the perfect opportunity for this change in the law. That is why my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie and I tabled Amendment 271B. It would provide for a new, distinct offence of child rape. This would operate alongside the current offence of the rape of a child under 13 in Section 5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
In her audit, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, laid bare the loophole in the law. Currently, an adult who has sex with a child under the age of 13 is automatically guilty of rape, and this operates with strict liability. But, despite the age of consent being 16, when an adult has had sex with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, the decision to charge and which offence to charge with is left open to the Crown Prosecution Service. This has led to many cases of child sexual exploitation having the charges downgraded from rape to lesser charges, such as sexual activity with a child under Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act. Not only is that offence not a charge of rape but it carries a maximum sentence of 14 years—not life, as in the case of an offence under Section 5. Our amendment would provide that, where a person over the age of 18 has penetrative sexual relations with a child between the ages of 13 and 15, they will be charged with the rape of a child in all cases and face a sentence of life imprisonment.
We have not included a so-called Romeo and Juliet provision in this amendment, because it applies only to those who are over 18. Children who are close in age and have consenting sexual relations would not be criminalised under the amendment. I want to make sure that that is clear.
Fundamentally, the law must be unambiguous on this matter. The penetration of a child is rape. It is not sexual activity; it is not exploitation; and it is not an unfortunate incident. It is rape. The Casey report describes girls as young as 13 being passed between adult men, yet institutional language frequently minimised the seriousness of what had occurred. Creating a specific offence would reinforce the fundamental point: children cannot consent to sex with adults—full stop. Given that the Government have accepted that this needs to happen, I hope that they will be able to accept my amendment.
The second recommendation from the national audit that the Government have failed to deliver is the national inquiry. Amendment 247B from my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch seeks to press the Government on what has become a chaotic process. I know we have discussed this on many occasions in this House, but the fact is that the inquiry is in disarray. Survivors have already resigned from the panel because they do not trust the Government. Those most impacted by the grooming gangs scandal have lost faith in the process that was meant to bring them long-overdue justice. Months on from the announcement, the Government were U-turning. The chair has not been appointed, the terms of reference have not been published and the inquiry has not begun. How much longer must the victims and survivors wait? My noble friend’s amendment would give the Government a timeline of three months, and there is no reason why they cannot live up to that.
My noble friend Lady Cash is a stalwart defender of the rights of children and young girls. She proposes two crucial amendments, which also link into the national audit on grooming gangs. Amendment 288A would complement the duty to report in Clause 72 of the Bill. It would establish a duty on professionals with safeguarding responsibilities to report where they know or reasonably believe that a child is being sexually abused or exploited. That would fill a long-identified and long-criticised gap. If this scandal has showed us anything, it is that vulnerable young girls were let down by the very people who were supposed to protect them. Institutions sometimes waited for absolute proof before acting, and children paid the price for that inaction.
Amendment 288B creates a new offence targeted at public officials who obstruct or frustrate investigations into child sexual abuse. This is not hypothetical. The noble Baroness, Lady Casey, found that public officials failed to record offences, failed to transmit intelligence and, in some cases, deliberately closed down avenues of inquiry. There must be consequences for such conduct. The noble Baroness was explicit that the fear of being accused of racism contributed to the reluctance of authorities to confront organised grooming gangs. More importantly, she also acknowledged that it remains impossible to provide a definitive assessment of the ethnic profile of the perpetrators, because the data collected by police forces has been woeful. That poor-quality data is one of the factors that permitted officials and authorities to claim they could not conclude any link between ethnicity or nationality and the prevalence of grooming gangs.
The large number of perpetrators whose ethnicity was recorded as “unknown” in the statistics creates a highly distorting picture. Inclusion of the “unknowns” shows 28% of group-based offenders as white, but exclusion of the “unknowns” shows 88% being white. This is obviously not the way to create datasets that could be used for accurate police intelligence and rigorous policy-making. Even today, we still have people trying to deny the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators in these grooming gangs were Pakistani, despite the evidence; they are able to continue this route because of the poor-quality data.
Because of this completely and shockingly inadequate collection of data, I strongly support this amendment from my noble friend Lady Cash. Her Amendments 288C and 288D compel the collection of ethnicity and nationality data for all child sexual offenders and victims. Consistent nationwide data gives us truth, and truth is the basis of action. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his series of amendments. They probe the definitions of child sexual assault and rape, and also impose a statutory duty to investigate historic instances of child sexual abuse where the lawful authority has been negligent. I hope that the Government will consider these amendments with the seriousness they deserve.
These amendments together form a coherent, serious and necessary set of reforms that respond directly to the failures highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and some of her solutions. The victims of grooming gangs were failed by the state. They were failed by those whose duty was to protect them, and they were failed by institutions that put political sensitivities above child safety.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Before my noble friend rises to reply, I want to emphasise, as someone who has practised at the Bar over many decades, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, the importance of our recognising in the course of these discussions that, while we are dealing here with a spate of offences clearly committed by gangs of Pakistani men, this is not confined to Pakistani men. The Epstein case has told us quite clearly that upper-class white men with power can abuse and groom and commit these crimes. I have seen it since my early years at the Bar. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, sitting there, and we acted in cases involving East End gangs who passed around girls who were part and parcel of that world. Nowadays, in the drugs world, pass-around girls, who are often underage, are part and parcel of that world. So we must not become fixated on the idea that this happens only in certain communities. I just want that to be emphasised.
The Minister of State, Home Office ( Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in what I think everybody in the Committee will accept is a very wide set of amendments, covering a large number of issues. I shall try my best to summarise and respond on behalf of the Government as a whole.
I start by saying that the horror of the events that have led to the discussions that we have had today need to be recognised, and I need to say from the Government Front Bench that we wish to ensure that we prevent those events happening in future. I just remind the Committee that the Government have been in office for 17 months so far, and the Bill before the Committee today includes a wide range of measures that have arisen out of reports published before the Government came to office, including the IICSA report under Alexis Jay, and are starting to look at some of the issues that have come out of the inquiries and discussions that we have had on issues, including the audit from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on group-based child sexual abuse.
I also place on record, and remind the Committee, that the Government accept all the recommendations that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has made, and are seeking to put those recommendations into practice. I accept today that there are a number of amendments down and discussion points pressing the Government on a range of issues, but I hope that we all have the same objective in mind, which is to prevent further similar horrors.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Why, then, was it legitimate to pass the War Crimes Act, bringing to justice someone who committed crimes, not even in this country, 50 years ago?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has made his case. I have put my view. If he wishes to examine it further, we can do so in due course. I understand that he wants to bring people to justice. So do I, but the approach we want to take is different from his, and we will have to accept that.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would give effect to recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, that the law should be changed so that adults penetrating a child aged under 16 are charged with rape. As I have said, the Government have accepted this recommendation and have committed to changing the law. I reassure noble Lords that we are working fast to consider how that law change should be made. We are discussing this. I met the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as part of that work and I will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach but, at the moment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we are committed to that legislation and will table it as soon as time allows.
Amendment 271C, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would mean that someone suspected of or charged with a sexual offence against a child that involved penetration would be described as having committed rape, whether the penetration was penile or non-penile, and regardless of what the offence is actually called in legislation. It would also mean that a wide range of other non-penetrative offending behaviour would be referred to simply as sexual assault. I do not think that that meets the intention of the recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, as it would not substantially change criminal law. Additionally, the difference in how offences are labelled in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mandating how enforcement agencies then refer to those offences could lead to operational confusion, which I hope the noble Lord would seek to avoid.
Amendment 271B, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which I have already mentioned, would create a new offence of rape which would apply when an adult penetrates with their penis the vagina, anus or mouth of a child aged 13 to 15. The offence would not require proof of an absence of consent or reasonable belief. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who spoke to it on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that the Government are committed to making this change in law. We have accepted the recommendations of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and we strongly agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. However, we are also aware of the need to ensure a robust framework of sexual offences, which must work effectively across all types of child sexual abuse. This will be a significant change to the framework and, as such, if the noble Lord will allow me, we need to discuss it with the police and prosecutors to make sure that they have the tools needed to bring abusers to justice. When we have done that and taken those considerations into account, we will change the law, and we will update Parliament when we do that. I hope he can accept that intention.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for her Amendments 288A and 288B. These overlap with the provisions in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which provide for a duty to report, which we will come on to later; she noted and accepted that. We believe, after extensive consultation with the relevant sectors, that the model in that chapter is the appropriate one to adopt. Again, we can debate that later, and I am sure we will, but that is the Government’s view at the moment.
Amendment 288B seeks to create a criminal offence specifically in respect of concealment by public officials. I am mindful that the type of offence proposed by this amendment may overlap with existing statutory provision, including obstruction of justice offences. Later, we will come on to consider the offence of preventing or deterring a reporter from carrying out their duty in Clause 79, and it will be part of the appropriate way forward at that stage.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, also tabled Amendments 288C and 288D, which are about the collection of the ethnicity and nationality data of child sexual abuse offenders and victims. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said. The recommendation from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is to work alongside the police to establish improvements which are required to assist the collection and publication of this data. We have accepted that recommendation. This includes reviewing and improving the existing data that the police collect, as well as considering future legislative measures if required. The objective the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, has set is one that we have accepted. We are working through that at the moment and, although it may not be satisfactory today, it is an objective to which she and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can hold us to account.
This is an important debate. I think we are at one on these things, but it is the Government’s firm view that most of the amendments are not the way forward or need further refinement along the lines that I have already outlined to the Committee. As I have said, the Government are committed to changing the law in relation to rape. We will take away amendments and consider this further for Report.
Given these caveats, let us go back to where we started on this wide-ranging group, which is whether we should have a statutory timescale for the inquiry. Going back to the lead amendment in this group, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, will withdraw her amendment because we are trying to do this as speedily as possible. The converse impact of her amendment may well be to create a further delay to a process that the Government are determined to get down as quickly as possible, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, to land the inquiry and get further recommendations to tighten up areas in which we need to reduce—and, we hope, stop—the number of further victims of these awful crimes.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for addressing my amendment and the others in such detail, and my noble friends Baroness Cash and Lord Blencathra for adding their support.
Even though the Minister has not accepted my amendment and stated that the others do not fit with the Government’s plans, I welcome the agreement across the Committee that we all support the principle of the work that is happening. However, I make no apologies for standing up and saying that the system is still not adequate in many ways. I am sure that the Minister can recognise some of this. I remember sitting in the Home Office in 2021-22, when I was a Minister there, and asking for the data about ethnicity and whether there was any connection. I was told, “No, Minister, there is none”. We all know now that that was not the case. I wish to God we had known that then so we could have done more for the victims. Collectively, we have all let them down; this is not a party-political issue, but one in which we should feel ashamed about what has happened to those vulnerable girls in our country.
I accept the Minister’s point about the timeline and the passage of the Bill, and that, were he to accept my amendment, it would potentially be delayed further than any of us would wish. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment spells out, on the face of the Bill, that “satisfied” here means satisfied on the balance of probabilities
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 5, page 253, line 33.
(ii) doing anything in Scotland or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under that section (as it has effect in England and Wales) if done in England and Wales.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the meaning of “engaging in child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK that would be an offence under clause 40 if done in England and Wales.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the meaning of “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” in the provisions about child criminal exploitation prevention orders in England and Wales, to encompass anything done anywhere in the UK.
(a) by attending at an appropriate police station and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendments to Schedule 5, page 255, line 27.
(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for notifications to be made in a way specified in the CCE prevention order. This is likely to be used to provide for notifications other than in person when the offender lives outside England and Wales in cases where in person notification is considered unreasonable.
“(5A) An “appropriate police station” is a police station in the police area in which—(a) the offender’s home address is situated, or(b) the court which made the order is situated.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is related to my amendment to Schedule 5, page 255, line 20 and my other amendment to Schedule 5, page 255, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this paragraph, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made on conviction in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendment to this paragraph, changes the meaning of “home address” so that the home address of the subject of a CCE prevention order made on conviction in England and Wales may be anywhere in the UK.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“ScheduleCCE prevention orders: ScotlandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland, in accordance with paragraph 3, makes an application to a sheriff for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person,(b) the Sheriff Appeal Court or the High Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(c) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court by reason of the special defence set out in section 51A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,(d) a court finds under section 53F of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 that a person is unfit for trial and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the adult”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the adult has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or (b) in a case within paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the adult will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to an adult “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the adult—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Northern Ireland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Scotland) if done in Scotland;(b) a reference to an adult “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the adult from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires that adult to do anything described in the order.The order may in particular require the adult to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the adult from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the adult;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the adult normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or interdict to which the adult is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be at least two years, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the adult has been remanded in custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the adult or the adult is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence, a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the adult is released from custody.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a person who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 (1) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may make an application for a CCE prevention order.(2) An application under this paragraph must be made to the sheriff in whose sheriffdom—(a) the adult lives, or(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland believes that adult is in or is intending to come to.Interim CCE prevention orders
4 (1) This paragraph applies where the sheriff adjourns the hearing of an application for a CCE prevention order made under paragraph 3.(2) The sheriff may, if they consider it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order.(3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the adult is a requirement to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the sheriff has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 7.CCE prevention orders in criminal proceedings: procedural powers
5 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The court may make a CCE prevention order—(a) at its own instance, or(b) on the motion of the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (or any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the adult.(4) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(5) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(6) If the adult does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the adult’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(b) only if satisfied that the adult has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings. (8) The court may act under sub-paragraph (6)(c) only if satisfied that the adult—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the adult does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the adult’s absence.(9) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
6 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the adult to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the adult to comply with this paragraph is first served, the adult must notify to the police—(a) the adult's name and, where the adult uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the adult's home address.(3) If, while the adult is required to comply with this paragraph, the adult—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the adult must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address.(4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the adult uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph must be made—(a) by attending at a police station for the time being specified in the document published under sub-paragraph (6) and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must publish, in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit, a document containing the name and address of each police station at which a person may give a notification under this paragraph.(7) The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland must keep under review a document published under this paragraph and may, from time to time, publish a revised version of the document in such manner as the Chief Constable thinks fit.(8) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(9) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the adult’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the adult has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the adult can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the adult may select.(10) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the adult is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to the appropriate sheriff for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(a).(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.(3) On the application, the appropriate sheriff may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the appropriate sheriff considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The appropriate sheriff may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if they consider that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The appropriate sheriff may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “the appropriate sheriff” means—(a) the sheriff who made the order,(b) a sheriff in the sheriffdom of that sheriff, or(c) a sheriff in the sheriffdom—(i) in which the adult is resident at the time of the application,(ii) in which the chief constable believes that adult to be, or(iii) to which the chief constable believes that adult intends to come.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order made in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) The persons are—(a) the adult;(b) the Lord Advocate, Crown Counsel or procurator fiscal (and any person duly authorised to represent or act for them).(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and, if the other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) wishes to be heard, that person) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement; (b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the adult from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the adult engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not discharge an order before the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, without the consent of the adult and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means—(a) where the High Court made the order, that court;(b) where the sheriff made the order, the sheriff.Appeals
9 (1) The adult or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 4 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 7 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made on application);(d) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders made in criminal proceedings).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of a sheriff court, the Sheriff Appeal Court;(b) in the case of a decision of the High Court, the High Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1, the order is taken to be a sentence for the purposes of any appeal.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales); (d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) (CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland which appears to the Scottish Ministers to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 6 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 6.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Interpretation
12 In this Schedule—“adult” has the meaning given by paragraph 1;“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 4);“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly);“High Court” means the High Court of Justiciary.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Scotland.
“Schedule CCE prevention orders: Northern IrelandPower to make CCE prevention order
1 (1) This paragraph applies if—(a) an application for a CCE prevention order in respect of a person is made to a magistrates’ court, in accordance with paragraph 3,(b) a person is acquitted of any offence by or before a court,(c) the County Court allows a person’s appeal against a conviction for any offence,(d) a court deals with a person in respect of a finding that—(i) the person is not guilty of any offence by reason of insanity, or(ii) the person is unfit to plead and has done the act charged against them in respect of any offence, or(e) a court deals with a person convicted of an offence for that offence.(2) The court may make an order under paragraph 2 (a “CCE prevention order”) in respect of the person (“the defendant”) if they are aged 18 or over and the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) are met.(3) The first condition is that—(a) in any case, the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has engaged in child criminal exploitation or in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation, or(b) in a case within paragraph (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (1), the offence in question is an offence under section 40.(4) The second condition is that the court considers that there is a risk that the defendant will engage in child criminal exploitation.(5) The third condition is that the court considers that it is necessary to make the order to prevent the defendant from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) In sub-paragraph (3)—(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to engaging in anything includes engaging in it before (as well as after) the time when this paragraph comes into force;(b) paragraph (b) applies in relation to findings made in respect of conduct occurring before (as well as after) that time.(7) In this paragraph—(a) a reference to the defendant “engaging in child criminal exploitation” is to the defendant—(i) doing anything that constitutes an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Northern Ireland), or(ii) doing anything in England and Wales or Scotland that would constitute an offence under section 40 (as it has effect in Northern Ireland) if done in Northern Ireland;(b) a reference to the defendant “engaging in conduct associated with child criminal exploitation” is to the adult doing anything, in any part of the United Kingdom, that is associated with the doing of anything within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii).CCE prevention orders
2 (1) A CCE prevention order is an order which—(a) prohibits the defendant from doing anything described in the order;(b) requires the defendant to do anything described in the order. The order may in particular require the defendant to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(2) A court may include a prohibition or requirement only if it considers it necessary for the purpose of preventing the defendant from engaging, or reducing the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(3) Prohibitions and requirements must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with any religious beliefs of the defendant;(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the defendant normally works or attends any educational establishment;(c) any conflict with the prohibitions and requirements of any other court order or injunction to which the defendant is subject.(4) A prohibition or requirement applies throughout the United Kingdom unless expressly limited to a particular area.(5) A CCE prevention order must—(a) specify the period for which it has effect, which must be—(i) at least five years in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e);(ii) at least two years in any other case, or(b) state that it has effect until further order.(6) Where, in a case within paragraph 1(1)(e)—(a) the defendant has been remanded in or committed to custody by an order of a court, or(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on the defendant or the defendant is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence,a CCE prevention order may provide that it does not take effect until the defendant is released from custody or ceases to be subject to a custodial sentence.(7) A CCE prevention order may specify periods for which particular prohibitions or requirements have effect.(8) Where a court makes a CCE prevention order in respect of a defendant who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Applications for CCE prevention orders
3 An application for a CCE prevention order may be made by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.Applications without notice
4 (1) An application for a CCE prevention order may be made without notice to the defendant.(2) If an application is made without notice the court must do one of the following—(a) adjourn the proceedings and make an interim CCE prevention order (see paragraph 5);(b) adjourn the proceedings without making an interim order;(c) dismiss the application.Interim CCE prevention orders
5 (1) This paragraph applies where the court adjourns the hearing of an application (whether made with or without notice) for a CCE prevention order.(2) The court may, if it considers it necessary to do so, make a CCE prevention order lasting for a fixed period or until the determination of the application (an “interim CCE prevention order”).Paragraph 2(5) does not apply in relation to an interim CCE prevention order. (3) The only requirement that may be imposed by an interim CCE prevention order on the defendant is a requirement to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(4) Subject to that, the court has the same powers in relation to an interim CCE prevention order as in relation to an order made at a final hearing.(5) An interim CCE prevention order made at a hearing of which the defendant was not given notice takes effect on being served on the defendant.(6) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) prevents the variation of the duration of an interim CCE prevention order, or the discharge of such an order, under paragraph 8.Procedural powers where no application made
6 (1) This paragraph applies in the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c), (d) or (e) of paragraph 1.(2) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a CCE prevention order, the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and evidence led by the defendant.(3) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings giving rise to the circumstances referred to in sub-paragraph (1).(4) The court may adjourn any proceedings relating to the making of a CCE prevention order.(5) If the defendant does not appear for any adjourned proceedings, the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.(6) The court may act under sub-paragraph (5)(b) only if satisfied that the defendant has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.(7) The court may act under sub-paragraph (5)(c) only if satisfied that the defendant—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if the defendant does not appear for those proceedings, the court may hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.(8) Nothing in this paragraph limits any other powers of the court.Notification requirements
7 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires the defendant to comply with this paragraph.(2) Before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which a CCE prevention order requiring the defendant to comply with this paragraph is first served, the defendant must notify to the police—(a) the defendant’s name and, where the defendant uses one or more other names, each of those names, and(b) the defendant’s home address.(3) If, while the defendant is required to comply with this paragraph, the defendant—(a) uses a name which has not been notified under the order, or(b) changes home address,the defendant must notify, to the police, the new name or the new home address. (4) A notification under sub-paragraph (3) must be given before the end of the period of three days beginning with the day on which the defendant uses the name or changes home address.(5) A notification under this paragraph is made—(a) by attending at any police station in Northern Ireland and giving an oral notification to a constable, or to a person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station, or(b) in a way specified in the CCE prevention order.(6) A notification under this paragraph must be acknowledged in writing.(7) In this paragraph “home address” means—(a) the address of the defendant’s sole or main residence in the United Kingdom, or(b) where the defendant has no such residence, the address or location of a place in the United Kingdom where the defendant can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as the defendant may select.(8) In determining the period of three days mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or (4), no account is to be taken of any time when the defendant is—(a) lawfully detained or otherwise lawfully deprived of their liberty, in the United Kingdom, or(b) outside the United Kingdom.Variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders
8 (1) This paragraph applies where a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) applies to a relevant court for the variation or discharge of a CCE prevention order.(2) The persons are—(a) the defendant;(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.(3) On the application, the court may (after hearing from the applicant and any other person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) who wishes to be heard) make any order varying or discharging the order that the court considers appropriate.This is subject to sub-paragraph (7).(4) The power to vary an order includes power to—(a) include an additional prohibition or requirement;(b) extend the period for which a prohibition or requirement has effect;(c) extend the period for which the order has effect.(5) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary to prevent the defendant from engaging, or reduce the likelihood of the defendant engaging, in child criminal exploitation.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (7) of paragraph 2 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.(7) The court may not, without the consent of the defendant and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, discharge an order before the end of the period of—(a) five years beginning with the day on which the order was made, in the case of an order made in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(e);(b) two years beginning with the day on which the order was made, in any other case.This sub-paragraph does not apply to an interim CCE prevention order.(8) In this paragraph “relevant court” means— (a) where the Crown Court or Court of Appeal made the order, the Crown Court;(b) in any other case, the magistrates’ court.Appeals
9 (1) The defendant or the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland may appeal to the relevant court against a decision made—(a) on an application under paragraph 3 (applications for CCE prevention orders);(b) under paragraph 5 (interim CCE prevention orders);(c) on an application under paragraph 8 (variation and discharge of CCE prevention orders).(2) In this paragraph“relevant court” means—(a) in the case of a decision of the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal;(b) in any other case, the County Court.(3) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (1) the relevant court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and(b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.(4) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1, the defendant may appeal against the making of the order (so far as they could not otherwise do) as if the defendant had been convicted of the offence and the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for the offence.(5) Where a CCE prevention order is made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(e) of paragraph 1, the defendant may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on the defendant for the offence.(6) Where a CCE prevention order is made on appeal, for the purposes of this Schedule (other than this paragraph) the order is to be treated as made by the court from which the appeal was made.(7) Rules of court may provide that an appeal from a decision—(a) to dismiss an application for a CCE prevention order made without notice being given to the defendant, or(b) to refuse to make an interim CCE prevention order when adjourning proceedings following such an application,may be made without notice being given to the defendant.Offence of breaching CCE prevention order
10 (1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with an order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) commits an offence.(2) The orders are—(a) a CCE prevention order;(b) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 1 of Part 4 (CCE prevention orders on application or acquittal etc. in England and Wales);(c) a CCE prevention order under Chapter 2A of Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (CCE prevention orders on conviction in England and Wales);(d) a CCE prevention order under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Scotland) (CCE prevention orders in Scotland).(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.(5) In proceedings for an offence under this paragraph, a copy of the original order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.(6) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to add to or remove from the list of orders any relevant UK order.(7) “Relevant UK order” means an order under the law of England and Wales or Scotland which appears to the Department of Justice to be equivalent or similar to a CCE prevention order.(8) In Article 4(1) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)) after “2015” insert “or paragraph 10 of Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland) to the Crime and Policing Act 2025”.Offences relating to notifications
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a CCE prevention order requires a person to comply with paragraph 7 (notification requirements).(2) The person commits an offence if—(a) without reasonable excuse, they fail to comply with that paragraph, or(b) in purported compliance with that paragraph, they notify to the police any information which they know to be false.(3) A person who commits an offence under this paragraph is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both).(4) A person commits an offence under sub-paragraph (2)(a) on the day on which they first fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with paragraph 7.(5) The person continues to commit the offence throughout any period during which the failure continues.(6) But the person may not be prosecuted more than once in respect of the same failure.(7) Paragraph 10(5) applies for the purposes of this paragraph.Special measures for witnesses
12 (1) Part 2 of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/2789 (N.I. 8))(special measures directions in the case of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses) applies to relevant proceedings under this Schedule as it applies to criminal proceedings, but with—(a) the omission of Articles 5(4) to (5), 9(4C)(e), 10A and 20 of that Order (which make provision appropriate only in the context of criminal proceedings), and(b) any other necessary modifications. (2) Rules of court made under or for the purposes of Part 2 of that Order apply to relevant proceedings under this Schedule—(a) to the extent provided by rules of court, and(b) subject to any modifications provided by rules of court.(3) In this paragraph “relevant proceedings under this Schedule” means any proceedings under this Schedule except proceedings relating to an offence under paragraph 10 or 11.Interpretation and supplementary provision
13 (1) In this Schedule—“CCE prevention order”, except in paragraph 10(2)(b) to (d), means an order under paragraph 2 (and accordingly includes an interim order made by virtue of paragraph 5);“defendant” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1;“engaging in child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given by paragraph 1 (and related expressions are to be construed accordingly).(2) An application under this Schedule is to be made—(a) by complaint, where the application is made to a magistrates’ court;(b) in accordance with rules of court, in any other case.(3) Article 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))(time limit for civil complaints) does not apply to a complaint under this Schedule.(4) On the hearing of an application under this Schedule, Article 118 of that Order (summons to witness and warrant for arrest) does not apply in relation to any person for whose protection the order is sought, except where the person has given oral or written evidence at the hearing.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule about CCE prevention orders in Northern Ireland.
Lord Blencathra
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the possibility of offences under this section being tried in a magistrate’s court.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 258A, I say in the nicest possible way to the Government Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, that he must not get overexcited about a 10-minute advisory timescale. My noble friend Lady Cash had three major new clauses tabled; I had three major new clauses tabled. I decided not to degroup any of them, out of decency to the House, but I was limited to 10 minutes.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I do not think I have ever given an indication the noble Lord could not speak, but there was a 13-minute contribution on a 10-minute latitude.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson; I was not referring to him. It was the Government Whip who was getting very agitated about my comments. I could have spoken for a lot longer if I had degrouped my amendments, but I am not going to do that.
Quite simply, Clause 56 lists all the crimes in Part 1 of Schedule 6 that are relevant to convicting someone of controlling another person’s home for criminal purposes. Schedule 6 is about two pages of big issues—very large crimes—which are completely inappropriate for a summary trial. This is about hijacking someone else’s home, where the homeowner is kept prisoner. That is such big stuff that it should not be triable by summary but only in a Crown Court.
I beg to move—after one minute and 21 seconds.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we welcome government Amendment 262, which recognises that cases of cuckooing often involve a complex web of coercive control. The person who seems to be in charge may actually be being manipulated or exploited by somebody else, and this addresses that complexity. However, while I understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and recognise all too well the potential life-changing harm caused by cuckooing, we are not minded to support restricting the trial venue in that way.
Magistrates’ courts provide quicker access to justice for victims and less delay than Crown Courts, particularly given the current backlogs. This is particularly important as cuckooing is linked to ongoing exploitation, with offenders often moving on to repeat the offence elsewhere, so fast action to stop the creation of more victims may in some cases be the more sensible option. Magistrates’ courts can also be less intimidating for vulnerable victims, supporting them to testify. Many other exploitation and safeguarding offences can be tried either way, allowing the specific facts of each case to determine the appropriate court. Imposing a blanket restriction on trial venue risks delaying justice, undermines established practice, and limits judicial discretion.
The pattern of coercion and control is at the heart of all these issues, whether we are talking about the exploitation of vulnerable children or adults. The evidence shows that women—as well as children—who are coerced into offending, often by traffickers or abusive partners, are in practice more often punished than protected. Too many victims of coercive control are still unfairly prosecuted for offences linked to their own abuse. Many female victims do not report to the police for fear of being criminalised, and that concern is well-founded. If, for example, drugs are being stored or grown in their flat, it is all too often the woman who is prosecuted. The statistics bear this out: around 70% of women in prison are victims of coercion or domestic violence.
Turning to the issue of coerced internal concealment, Amendment 259 links the new offences of causing internal concealment and cuckooing, making it clearer and easier to prosecute these serious and often related behaviours. Coerced internal concealment, whereby a person hides items such as drugs inside their bodies, is a particularly stark illustration of the abuse of power. Anyone who puts another person’s life at risk in this way should be subject to the harshest of penalties, so we support the introduction of this new offence.
I take this opportunity to raise an issue which, regrettably and surprisingly, remains absent from the Bill. In the past five years in England and Wales, a child has been subjected to an intimate police search every 14 hours on average. Black children are four times more likely to be strip-searched compared to their proportion of the population. Half these searches lead to no further action.
In opposition, the Government promised stronger regulation, including a statutory duty to notify parents, which should be the bare minimum. Although a consultation began in April 2024, there have been no firm proposals since, which is disappointing given an earlier commitment from the former Home Secretary to new mandatory rules and safeguards being
“put in place as a matter of urgency”.
That pledge followed a series of recommendations from the IOPC, including a call to amend the law so that police forces are required to make a safeguarding referral for any child subjected to a search involving the exposure of intimate parts. It also called for clearer guidance, enhanced training, greater consistency across police forces and, again, for these reforms to be implemented “quickly”.
Some 18 months later, some forces have improved practice and made more safeguarding referrals, but there is still no legal requirement. The Children’s Commissioner confirms that poor strip search practice is widespread and is not limited to any one force or region; failures include not having an appropriate adult present. Can the Minister confirm that a timescale is in place for the implementation of these recommendations? If not, will the Government consider amending the Bill to reflect the need for urgent action?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for introducing his amendment. This is an opportunity to consider cuckooing more broadly.
We on these Benches recognise the need for a cuckooing offence, and we did so last year before the general election. I am glad to see that the Government are now following our lead. Data suggests that cuckooing offences have quadrupled in recent years; given that it is a crime largely associated with child exploitation, it is all the more pertinent that we tackle it head on now.
Children are used to conceal and traffic illegal drugs in order to fund the activities of criminal drug gangs. Some 22% of people involved in county lines drug trades are children—that is almost 3,000 vulnerable people under the age of 18 being made to do the dirty work for criminals. These county lines trades are often run out of the dilapidated homes of vulnerable people. Criminals appropriate and transform them to use them for their own ends. Children are ferried in and out; they are sent to similar locations all over the country. It is a very specific crime that requires a very specific law. We see force in my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment, but we would not wish to tie the prosecutor’s hands.
Amendment 259, which addresses the offence of causing internal concealment, would prohibit cuckooed houses being used to house people who hide and then transport drugs. These people, as I have pointed out, are often children. Amendments 260 and 261 address that more broadly. Cuckooing—using children for criminal purposes—is a heinous and exploitative crime and it is right that it be given its own offence. However, while we welcome the Government agreeing to come with us on cuckooing, it is a shame that they have failed to address another root cause of the issue. As we have said, cuckooing is a crime primarily committed by gangs who co-opt homes to run their criminal operations. If you could break up those gangs, you would reduce cuckooing; the two feed off each other.
On the previous day of Committee, His Majesty’s Opposition had two amendments that would have done this. The first amendment would have created a statutory aggravating factor for gang-related offences. The second would have created an offence for specific gang-related graffiti. We appreciate the Government following our lead to create the offence of cuckooing, but if they are serious about this, they should do the same with gangs. Our measures would not, as some noble Lords suggested, criminalise fence-painting or church symbols. Neither is a gang sign. They would, however, deter gangs from their activities and lock up members who partake. This would be just as effective as this new offence.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this short debate. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I was not agitated—if he thinks that that is me being agitated, he has not yet seen me agitated. I hope that noble Lords never will. I was just reflecting the conventions and guidelines to respect each other and the courtesies of the House. We will move on. I welcome the brief and succinct way in which he introduced his amendment, but if he will allow me, I will first deal with the government amendments in this group.
Amendment 262 would make it clear that controlling another person’s dwelling for the purposes of the new cuckooing offence may be carried out via another person. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the principle behind them. While the existing drafting would already allow for the prosecution of a perpetrator who uses a third party to exercise control over another’s dwelling, the amendment would put this point beyond doubt, which we felt was important.
In cuckooing cases, particularly within the county lines context, gang leaders may exploit children or vulnerable adults to control another person’s home, as noted in the debate. The amendment would make it clear that the new cuckooing offence can, and should, be used to pursue the perpetrators who are responsible for directing the cuckooing rather than the individuals who may well be victims of exploitation. We will issue statutory guidance to the police to support the implementation of the offence.
Amendment 259 would add the offence of coerced internal concealment created by the Bill to the list of offences in Schedule 6, which are relevant offences in England and Wales, for the purpose of the cuckooing offence. Similarly, Amendments 260 and 261 would add the offence of child criminal exploitation, also created by the Bill and which we discussed earlier today, to the list of relevant offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the purpose of the cuckooing offence.
As noted, cuckooed properties may be used as a base for criminal exploitation. These amendments would therefore ensure that, where cuckooing is carried out for the purpose of enabling the commission of the coerced internal concealment offence in England and Wales, or the commission of the child criminal exploitation offence anywhere in the UK, the cuckooing offence will apply.
I turn to Amendment 258A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As he explained, the amendment seeks to remove the ability for cuckooing offences to be tried as a summary offence in a magistrates’ court, thereby limiting the offence to being tried in the Crown Court on indictment. While I am sympathetic to the noble Lord’s intention of ensuring that the perpetrators of this harmful practice receive appropriate sentencing, we, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, consider that the provision for the cuckooing offence to be triable either way is fair and proportionate.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts, and we do not want to see that approach restricted. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of each individual case. The courts may also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The cuckooing offence is designed to capture a range of actions that may be involved in controlling another person’s dwelling, from occupying the property through to directing delivery of items, such as drugs, to and from the property. It may therefore be more proportionate for some cuckooing cases to be tried in a magistrates’ court.
More broadly, allowing offences to be tried in magistrates’ courts helps reduce the burden on the Crown Court and can enable quicker access to justice for victims. It is a sad fact that the lack of investment in the court system over recent years has meant that there is huge strain on the court system. As we always say, rightly, justice delayed is justice denied, so restricting the trial of a cuckooing offence to the Crown Courts would not necessarily deliver the justice that victims deserve and that society would seek to be meted out on the perpetrators.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, that was a good little 16-minute debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, that I rather admire his style in this House—I hope that does not damage his future career. There are many Ministers who are able, but in addition he brings a style of being decent, nice, pleasant in the way he deals with debates, thorough and meticulous, patient and even long-suffering. I rather admire the way he actually replies in detail to our amendments; his initial reaction might be to say, “What a load of rubbish!”, but he does not do that and is kind and courteous. I appeal to him: could he please have a word with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and teach him how to be as nice and decent as he is? Turning to the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Katz, I still think that he was wrong and I was right, but, nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
(a) section 40 (child criminal exploitation);(b) section 59 (causing internal concealment of item for criminal purpose).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of causing internal concealment of an item for a criminal purpose, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in England and Wales for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
“38A An offence under section 40 of this Act (child criminal exploitation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of child criminal exploitation, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in Scotland for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
“58A An offence under section 40 of this Act (child criminal exploitation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of child criminal exploitation, created by this Bill, to the list of offences that are relevant offences in Northern Ireland for the purpose of the offence of control over another’s home for criminal purposes (clause 56).
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(4A) The circumstances in which A exercises control over B’s dwelling include circumstances where—(a) A arranges for another person (C) to exercise control over B’s dwelling (including by exercising control over any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4)), and(b) C does exercise that control.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that control over another’s dwelling may be via another person, for the purposes of the offence in clause 56.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(c) CCE prevention orders under Schedule (CCE prevention orders: Northern Ireland).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives a power to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland about the new CCE prevention orders for Northern Ireland.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting change.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to further amendments later. I just want to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his kind words before he goes. My reputation is ruined, but there we go. I thank him anyway.
The government amendments in this group and the clauses to which they relate are vital in safeguarding the public from some of the gravest harms emerging from the digital age. All the amendments in this group of government amendments, starting with Amendments 295A and 295B, pertain to the introduction of a defence for authorised persons to test and investigate technologies for child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate imagery capabilities. These are abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our laws keep pace with them.
Noble Lords will know that the rapid advancement and prevalence of AI technologies without adequate guardrails has increased the volume of AI-generated abuse imagery circulating online. These harms fall disproportionately on women and children. We must get ahead of these risks. At present, AI developers and public safety organisations seeking to test for these risks face significant legal jeopardy from testing. These legal blocks mean that testers could be liable to prosecution if they create illegal images during testing. We want to support government and public safety organisations in their commitment to research internet safety. If we are serious about AI safety, it is essential that we support continuous and rigorous testing so that testers can be confident that models are safe to use and support our ambition to drive down CSAM online.
This defence could give a technology company the ability to understand the capabilities of its models, identify weaknesses and design out harmful outputs. Amendment 295A introduces a power by regulations to create new testing defences. The Secretary of State will authorise persons to carry out technology testing subject to rigorous conditions. I confirm that any regulations that are brought forward will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and testing will be subject to rigorous oversight and strict mandatory operational safeguards. The regulation-making power will also extend to making provision for the enforcement of any breaches of conditions and may include creating criminal offences.
Amendment 295B lists the offences to which this defence applies. The Secretary of State will have the power to amend this list of offences as the law evolves. This will ensure that the defence remains fit for purpose. I hope the Committee welcomes that the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Department of Justice want this defence to be extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The offences listed may be amended, as appropriate, for England and Wales as well as for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland before making any regulations that would affect the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Clause 63 criminalises artificial intelligence image generators, which are used by offenders to create child sexual abuse imagery. Our law is clear that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is illegal. However, these fine-tuned models that facilitate the creation of child sexual abuse material currently are not. Therefore, the Government are making it illegal to possess, make, adapt, supply or offer to supply a child sexual abuse image generator, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.
Government Amendments 267 and 268 ensure that we take a unified approach across the United Kingdom. This is why we are creating equivalent offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 64 amends Section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to criminalise the possession of advice or guidance on using artificial intelligence to create child abuse imagery. Sadly, there are so-called paedophile manuals that contain guidance for offenders on how to abuse children sexually and how to create indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs—which are illegal under the existing offence in the Serious Crime Act 2015. However, this offence does not include guidance for offenders about how to use AI to create illegal images of children and is applicable only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 269 extends the offence, as amended by Clause 64, to Scotland, ensuring that these vile manuals can be tackled across the whole of the United Kingdom. The other amendments in this group are consequential on the main amendments that I have described.
Together, these government amendments will enhance the protection of women and children, prevent criminal use of AI technologies and improve long-term safety by design and the resilience of future AI development. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, if I could intervene for a moment, the Bill is going at a fine pace through the House, but I am a little concerned about Amendment 263. The problems of modern slavery that I have raised in the House are very severe.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I know. I am just asking for some assistance with this—does the proposed new clause in Amendment 263 still stand?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Committee has considered that amendment. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me on any details, I will certainly write back to him, but, in the interests of progress, it would be better if that was dealt with outside the Chamber, given that we have debated those matters already.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, the government amendments set out the devolution arrangements to ensure that criminals cannot exploit differences between the four nations, and we are very happy to support them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is an important issue that I know there is cross-party support for, and I am largely supportive of the intentions behind the amendments in this group.
The first of the Minister’s amendments acts largely to tidy up the drafting of the Bill and ensure its thoroughness. I agree with this. Expanding the scope for technology testing regarding child sexual abuse materials is welcome.
Similarly, extending provisions to ensure that they are the same in all parts of the union is a minor but important amendment. Consistency across our internal borders is the best way to ensure that children are protected equally everywhere. It should help with cross-border co-ordination between authorities, and I therefore welcome it.
I see the logic behind government Amendments 295A and 295B. It is the right approach that, if the Government want to crack down on technology, they should first do so at the source. That means discovering which technologies are being used to create unlawful content, which requires people to test them. This would also, I hope, have the additional effect of not blanket banning content for people without nuance, instead targeting the specific pieces of software responsible. So long as the individuals able to use this as a defence remain strictly authorised by the Secretary of State, I appreciate the amendment’s aim.
This should go hand in hand with an initiative similar to the one suggested by my noble friend Lord Nash. If the Government can identify the technology used, they should attempt to shut it down. Unfortunately, this is often outside the Government’s jurisdiction and therefore some form of software to prevent the distribution of child sexual abuse material might be the next best approach. I hope that the Minister can confirm that they are perhaps looking at this.
As I said, this is a non-partisan issue. We all want to reduce child sexual abuse, online or offline, and these amendments should work to help the Bill achieve the former. I hope that the Minister can, in due course—perhaps at a later stage—fully outline how this new technology will be implemented and applied consistently, and will consider my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, but I broadly support the approach.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on what he said and give him a fuller briefing on the detail of how we are approaching the AI issue. Obviously, we will come on to further amendments in the next group, which I will respond to once they have been moved.
Baroness Kidron
“46D Child sexual abuse image-generation risk assessment(1) A provider of an online service, including but not limited to a generative AI large language model, must risk assess the likelihood of their service being used to create or facilitate the creation of a CSA image or images as defined by section 46A.(2) If a risk is identified in a CSA risk assessment—(a) where the provider is regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must report the risk and agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM;(b) where the provider is not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023, a provider must agree to steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks of their online service being used to create or facilitate the creation of CSA images with the National Crime Agency.(3) Where a provider regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with OFCOM (see subsection (2)(a)), they can be subjected to OFCOM’s enforcement powers set out in Part 7, Chapter 6 (enforcement powers) of that Act.(4) Where a provider not regulated by the Online Safety Act 2023 fails to agree to or implement steps to reduce, mitigate and manage the risks with the National Crime Agency (see subsection (2)(b)), they commit an offence.(5) A provider that commits an offence under this section is liable to be issued with a penalty notice by the National Crime Agency.(6) In this section a “penalty notice” means a notice requiring its recipient to pay a penalty of an amount not exceeding whichever is the greater of—(a) £18 million, or(b) 10% of a provider’s qualifying worldwide revenue for the most recent complete accounting period.(7) A penalty notice may be reissued where a provider continues to commit an offence under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that services that do not fall into scope of Clause 63 as currently drafted still assess and mitigate the risk of their services being used as an AI child sexual abuse generator.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 266, I will speak also to Amendments 479 and 480, all of which are in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Russell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for their support.
All three amendments concern illegal or harmful online activity. Amendment 266 places a legal duty on online services, including generative AI services, to conduct risk assessments evaluating the likelihood that their systems could be used to create or facilitate child sexual abuse material. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause establishes that duty. Subsection (2) requires providers to report the results to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency, depending on whether or not they are regulated under the Online Safety Act. Subsections (3) to (7) set out the enforcement mechanisms, drawing on Ofcom’s existing enforcement powers under the OSA or equivalent powers for the NCA.
Amendment 266 complements Clause 63, which creates the new offence relating to the supply of CSA image generators to which the Minister has just spoken, but it is in addition to those powers. In June 2023, the BBC reported that the open-source AI model Stable Diffusion was being used to generate child sexual abuse material. Researchers at Stanford University subsequently found that Stable Diffusion had been trained on datasets containing child sexual abuse material. This issue is not confined to a single model. The Internet Watch Foundation and the chair of the AI Security Institute have warned of the potential for open-source AI models to be used for the creation of CSAM.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 271A is in my name and I support the other amendments in this group. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am an investor in a wide range of companies, including many software companies.
My Amendment 271A, if passed, would have the effect of software being used to screen out all child sexual abuse material, including live-streaming, on smartphones and tablets, and in due course on all devices. It would also apply to private communications, which is where the majority of live-streamed child sexual abuse takes place and which is not covered by the Online Safety Act.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 479 and 480, and I support the other amendments in this group. I have once again to thank my noble friend Lady Kidron for raising an issue which I had missed and which, I fear, the regulator might have missed as well. After extensive research, I too am very worried about the Online Safety Act, which many of your Lordships spent many hours refining. It does not cover some of the new developments in the digital world, especially personalised AI chatbots. They are hugely popular with children under 18; 31% use Snapchat’s My AI and 32% use Google’s Gemini.
The Online Safety Act Network set up an account on ChatGPT-5 using a 13 year-old persona. Within two minutes, the chatbot was engaged with the user about mental health, eating disorders and advice about how to safely cut yourself. Within 40 minutes, it had generated a list of pills for overdosing. The OSA was intended to stop such online behaviour. Your Lordships worked so hard to ensure that the OSA covered search and user-to-user functions in the digital space, but AI chatbots have varied functionalities that, as my noble friend pointed out, are not clearly covered by the legislation.
My noble friend Lady Kidron pointed out that, although Dame Melanie Dawes confirmed to the Communications and Digital Committee that chatbots are covered by the OSA, Ofcom in its paper Era of Answer Engines admits:
“Under the OSA, a search service means a service that is, or which includes, a search engine, and this applies to some (though not all) GenAI search tools”.
There is doubt about whether the AI interpretive process, which can change the original search findings, excludes it from being in the scope of search under the OSA. More significantly, AI chatbots are not covered where the provider creates content that is personalised for one user and cannot be forwarded to another user. I am advised that this is not a user-to-user service as defined under the Act.
One chatbot that seems to fall under this category is Replika. I had never heard of it until I started my research for this amendment. However, 2% of all children aged nine to 17 say that they have used the chatbot, and 18% have heard of it. Its aim is to stimulate human interaction by creating a replica chatbot personal to each user. It is very sophisticated in its output, using avatars to create images of a human interlocutor on screen and a speaking voice to reply conversationally to requests. The concern is that, unlike traditional search engines, it is programmed for sycophancy, or, in other words, to affirm and engage the user’s response—the more positive the response, the more engaged the child user. This has led to conversations with the AI companion talking the child user into self-harm and even suicide ideation.
Research by Internet Matters found that a third of children users think that interacting with chatbots is like talking to a friend. Most concerning is the level of trust they generate in children, with two in five saying that they have no concerns about the advice they are getting. However, because the replies are supposed to be positive, what might have started as trustworthy advice develops into unsafe advice as the conversation continues. My concern is that chatbots are not only affirming the echo chambers that we have seen developing for over a decade as a result of social media polarisation but are reducing yet further children’s critical faculties. We cannot leave the development of critical faculties to the already inadequate media literacy campaigns that Ofcom is developing. The Government need to discourage sycophancy and a lack of critical thinking at its digital source.
A driving force behind the Online Safety Act was the realisation that tech developers were prioritising user engagement over user safety. Once again, we find new AI products that are based on the same harmful principles. In looking at the Government’s headlong rush to surrender to tech companies in the name of AI growth, I ask your Lordships to read the strategic vision for AI laid out in the AI Opportunities Action Plan. It focuses on accelerating innovation but fails to mention once any concern about children’s safety. Your Lordships have fought hard to make children’s safety a priority online in legislation. Once again, I ask for these amendments to be scrutinised by Ofcom and the Government to ensure that children’s safety is at the very centre of their thinking as AI develops.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 266, 479 and 480. I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
I do not want to repeat the points that were made—the noble Baroness ably set out the reasons why her amendments are very much needed—so I will make a couple of general points. As she demonstrated, what happens online has what I would call real-world consequences—although I was reminded this week by somebody much younger than me that of course, for the younger generation, there is no distinction between online and offline; it is all one world. For those of us who are older, it is worth remembering that, as the noble Baroness set out, what happens online has real-world, and sadly often fatal, consequences. We should not lose sight of that.
We have already heard many references to the Online Safety Act, which is inevitable. We all knew, even as we were debating the Bill before it was enacted, that there would have to be an Online Safety Act II, and no doubt other versions as well. As we have heard, technology is changing at an enormously fast rate, turbocharged by artificial intelligence. The Government recognise that in Clause 63. But surely the lesson from the past decade or more is that, although technology can be used for good, it can also be used to create and disseminate deeply harmful content. That is why the arguments around safety by design are absolutely critical, yet they have been lacking in some of the regulation and enforcement that we have seen. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give the clarification that the noble Baroness asked for on the status of LLMs and chatbots under the Online Safety Act, although he may not be able to do so today.
I will make some general points. First, I do not think the Minister was involved in the debate on and scrutiny of—particularly in this Chamber—what became the Online Safety Act. As I have said before, it was a master class in what cross-party, cross-House working can achieve, in an area where, basically, we all want to get to the same point: the safety of children and vulnerable people. I hope that the Ministers and officials listening to and involved in this will work with this House, and with Members such as the noble Baroness who have huge experience, to improve the Bill, and no doubt lay down changes in the next piece of legislation and the one after that. We will always be chasing after developments in technology unless we are able to get that safety-by-design and preventive approach.
During the passage of the then Online Safety Bill, a number of Members of both Houses, working with experienced and knowledgeable outside bodies, spotted the harms and loopholes of the future. No one has all the answers, which is why it is worth working together to try to deal with the problems caused by new and developing technology. I urge the Government not to play belated catch-up as we did with internet regulation, platform regulation, search-engine regulation and more generally with the Online Safety Act. If we can work together to spot the dangers, whether from chatbots, LLMs, CSAM-generated content or deepfakes, we will do an enormous service to young people, both in this country and globally.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 479 and 480, which seek to prevent chatbots producing illegal content. I also support the other amendments in this group. AI chatbots are already producing harmful, manipulative and often racist content. They have no age protections and no warnings or information about the sources being used to generate the replies. Nor is there a requirement to ensure that AI does not produce illegal content. We know that chatbots draw their information from a wide range of sources that are often unreliable and open to manipulation, including blogs, open-edit sites such as Wikipedia, and messaging boards, and as a result they often produce significant misinformation and disinformation.
I will focus on one particular area. As we have heard in the contributions so far, we know that some platforms generate racist content. Looking specifically at antisemitism, we can see Holocaust denial, praise of Hitler and deeply damaging inaccuracies about Jewish history. We see Grok, the X platform, generating numerous antisemitic comments, denying the scale of the Holocaust, praising Adolf Hitler and, as recently as a couple of months ago, using Jewish-sounding surnames in the context of hate speech.
Impressionable children and young people, who may not know how to check the validity of the information they are presented with, can so easily be manipulated when exposed to such content. This is particularly concerning when we know that children as young as three are using some of these technologies. We have already heard about how chatbots in particular are designed in this emotionally manipulative way, in order to boost engagement. As we have heard—it is important to reiterate it—they are sycophantic, affirming and built to actively flatter.
If you want your AI chatbot or platform not to flatter you, you have to specifically go to the personalisation page, as I have done, and be very clear that you want responses that focus on substance over praise, and that it should skip compliments. Otherwise, these platforms are designed to act completely the other way. If a person acted like this in some circumstances, we would call it emotional abuse. These design choices mean that young people—teens and children—can become overly trusting and, as we have heard in the cases outlined, reliant on these bots. In the most devastating cases, we know that this focus on flattery has led to people such as Sophie Rottenberg and 16 year-old Adam Raine in America taking their own lives on the advice of these AI platforms. Assisting suicide is illegal, and we need to ensure that this illegality extends to chatbots.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and in particular I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her endless work in this capacity. This is the first time I have spoken on any of these groups of amendments. I find everything the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others have said truly shocking. Some 55 years ago, I started a magazine called Spare Rib. If I had ever dreamed, in my wildest and worst nightmares, that I would find myself listening to what everyone has been talking about, I suppose we would not have gone on. In so many ways, this is a worse situation that women find themselves in, and certainly young girls. I carried on riding a pony till I was 15—that was my childhood—and then I found boys. This is so terrible, and I congratulate every noble Lord, and particularly the noble Baronesses, on the work that they have done.
I will be very brief, as I just want to speak in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and Amendment 266, which simply says that AI is already being used to harm children. Unless we act decisively, this harm will just escalate. The systems that everyone has been discussing today are extraordinary technological achievements—and they are very dangerous. The Internet Watch Foundation has reported an explosion in AI-generated child sexual abuse material. Offenders can now share instructions on how to manipulate the models, how to train them on illegal material and how to evade all the filters. The tools are becoming so accessible and so frictionless that a determined offender can produce in minutes material that once would have involved an entire criminal enterprise. Against that backdrop, it is quite staggering that we do not already require AI providers to assess whether their systems can be used to generate illegal child abuse. Amendment 266 would plug this gap. Quite frankly, I cannot for the life of me see why any responsible company would resist such a requirement.
Amendment 479 addresses a confusion that has gone on for too long. We cannot have a situation where some companies argue that generative AI is a search service and therefore completely in scope of the Online Safety Act, while others argue the opposite. If a model can retrieve, repackage or generate harmful content in response to a query, the public deserve clarity about precisely where that law applies.
On Amendment 480, this really is an issue that keeps me awake at night. These chatbots can be astonishingly persuasive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, they are also addictive: they are friendly, soothing and intimate, and are a perfect confidant for a lonely child. They also generate illegal material, encourage harmful behaviour and groom children. We have already seen chatbots modelled on sex offenders and heard reports of chatbots sending sexualised messages to children, including the appalling case of a young boy who took his life after weeks of interaction with AI. We will no doubt hear of more such cases. The idea that such systems might fall through the cracks is unthinkable.
What these amendments do is simple. They say that if a system can generate illegal or harmful content for a child, it should not be allowed to do so. Quite frankly, anything that man or woman can make, man or woman can unmake—that is still just true. We have often said in this Chamber that children deserve no less protection online than they do offline. With AI, however, we should demand more, because these systems are capable of things no human predator could ever manage. They work 24/7, they target thousands simultaneously and they adapt perfectly to the vulnerabilities of every child they encounter. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right to insist that we act now, not in two years—think how different it was two years ago. We have to act now. I say to the Government that this is a real chance to close some urgent gaps, and I very much hope that they will take it.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but I will speak to Amendments 479 and 480 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare my interest as a guest of Google at their Future Forum, an AI policy conference.
These amendments are vital to ascertain the Government’s position on AI chatbots and where they stand in relation to the Online Safety Act, but I have to question how we can have been in a state of ambiguity for so long. We are very close to ChatGPT rolling out erotica on its platform for verified adults. Six months ago, the Wall Street Journal highlighted the deeply disturbing issue of digital companion bots engaging in sexual chat with users, which told them they were underage. Further, they willingly played out scenarios such as “submissive schoolgirl”. Another bot purporting to be a 12 year-old boy promised that it would not tell its parents about dating a user identifying himself as an adult man. Professor Clare McGlynn KC has already raised concerns about what she has coined chatbot-driven VAWG, the tech itself being designed to be sexually suggestive and to engage in grooming and coercive behaviours. Internet Matters found that 64 % of children use chatbots. The number of companion apps has rapidly developed and researchers at Bournemouth University are already warning about the addictive potential of these services.
The Government and the regulator cannot afford to be slow in clarifying the position of these services. It begs a wider question of how we can be much more agile in our response and continually horizon-scan, as legislation will always struggle to keep pace with the evolution of technology. This is the harm we are talking about now, but how will it evolve tomorrow? Where will we be next month or next year? It is vital that both the Government and the regulator become more agile and respond at pace. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. Earlier—I suppose it was this morning—we talked about child criminal exploitation at some length, thanks particularly to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and Professor Jay. Essentially, what we are talking about in this group of amendments is child commercial exploitation. All these engines, all these technologies, are there for a commercial purpose. They have investors who are expecting a return and, to maximise the return, these technologies are designed to drive traffic, to drive addiction, and they do it very successfully. We are way behind the curve—we really are.
I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the body of knowledge within Parliament, in both Houses, that was very involved in the passage of the Online Safety Act. There is a very high level of concern, in both Houses, that we were perhaps too ambitious in assuming that a regulator that had not previously had any responsibilities in this area would be able to live up to the expectations held, and indeed some of the promises made, by the Government during the passage of that Act. I think we need to face up to that: we need to accept that we have not got it off to as good a start as we wanted and hoped, and that what is happening now is that the technologies we have been hearing about are racing ahead so quickly that we are finding it hard to catch up. Indeed, looking at the body language and the physiognomies of your Lordships in the Chamber, looking at the expressions on our faces as some of what we were talking about is being described, if it is having that effect on us, imagine what effect it is having on the children who in many cases are the subjects of these technologies.
I plead with the Minister to work very closely with his new ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, and DSIT. We really need to get our act together and focus; otherwise, we will have repeats of these sorts of discussions where we raise issues that are happening at an increasing pace, not just here but all around the world. I fear that we are going to be holding our hands up, saying “We’re doing our best and we’re trying to catch up”, but that is not good enough. It is not good enough for my granddaughter and not good enough for the extended families of everybody here in this Chamber. We really have to get our act together and work together to try to catch up.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendments in this group, particularly those tabled by my noble friend Lord Nash on security software and by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on AI-generated child sexual abuse material. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Society for Public Health.
As others have noted, the Online Safety Act was a landmark achievement and, in many ways, something to be celebrated, but technology has not stood still—we said it at the time—and nor can our laws. It is important that we revisit it in examining this legislation, because generative AI presents such an egregious risk to our children which was barely imaginable even two years ago when we were discussing that Act. These amendments would ensure that our regulatory architecture keeps pace.
Amendment 266 on AI CSAM risk assessment is crucial. It addresses a simple but profound question: should the provider of a generative AI service be required to assess whether that service could be used to create or facilitate child sexual abuse material? Surely the answer is yes. This is not a theoretical risk, as we have heard in testimony from many noble Lords. We know that AI can generate vivid images, optimised on a dataset scraped from children themselves on the open internet, and that can be prompted to create CSAM-like content. On this, there is no ambiguity at all. We know that chatbots trained on the vast corpora of text from children can be manipulated to generate grooming scripts and sexualised narratives to engage children and make them semi-addicted to those conversations. We know that these tools are increasingly accessible, easy to use and almost impossible to monitor by parents and, it seems, regulators.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. What a speech my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made; I commend all the speeches that have been made. If the Government only do one thing with this Bill, it should be to take on this group of amendments.
It is utterly terrifying. I addressed a teaching conference this week, with the safeguarding leads of many schools around the country, and they are tearing their hair out about it. The kids are on this stuff 100%, as we have seen from the statistics. The other thing they said to me, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is that parents either know about it and are terrified about how to address it, or they do not know about it, and I am not sure which is worse.
I reiterate that we have to get ahead of this, as the noble Baroness said. The Government must get ahead of this; otherwise, the dangers are just too huge to think about. I will keep this brief because I will speak about it more in due course, but my team and I went on a chatbot and we were “Lily”, and within about three seconds we were having an incestuous conversation with our father. It was absolutely crackers—terrible—so I ask the Government to please take on board these recommendations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak and I have nothing to add to all the brilliant speeches that have been made. I did not participate in the debates on the Online Safety Act. I feel horribly naive; I find this debate utterly terrifying and the more that parents know about these things, the better. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to take this back and discuss these issues with people in this Chamber and the House of Commons. We cannot be behind the curve all the time; we have got to grip this to protect our children and our grandchildren.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I briefly add my support to all these amendments, particularly the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which is fascinating. If we can get the software to do this, then why would we not? I offer a challenge to Ofcom, the Government and tech firms. If they can produce such sophisticated software that it can persuade children to kill themselves, why are BT and eBay’s chatbots so rubbish? We have to make AI a force for good, not for evil.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, having arrived in this House a very long time ago—53 years ago—I know this House works best if it treats legislation as an evolutionary process. The Online Safety Act seemed to be a very good Act when we passed it two years ago, but now we have further, drastic evidence, which we have heard in this debate. I am confident my noble friend the Minister will treat the speeches made in this debate as part of the evolutionary process which, I emphasise again, this House does best.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward these amendments and for explaining them so clearly. The understanding of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, is that AI chatbots do not trigger the illegal content duties since these tools are not considered to show mental intent. As a result, chatbots can generate prompts that are not classified as illegal, even though the exact same content would be illegal and subject to regulation if produced by a human. I find that quite extraordinary.
By accepting these amendments, the Government would be acting decisively to address the fast-evolving threat which this year saw abusive material of sexual content for children rise by 380%. In April 2024, the Internet Watch Foundation reported that a manual circulating on the dark web, which the Minister referred to earlier, instructed paedophiles to use AI to create nude images of children, then use these to extort or coerce money or extreme material from the young victims. The charity warned that AI was generating astoundingly realistic abusive content.
Text-to-image generative AI tools and AI companion apps have proliferated, enabling abusers to create AI chatbot companions specifically to enable realistic and abusive roleplay with child avatars. Not only do they normalise child sexual abuse, but evidence shows that those who abuse virtual children are much more likely to go on to abuse real ones. Real children are also increasingly subjected to virtual rape and sexual abuse online. It is wrong to dismiss this as less traumatic simply because it happens in a digital space.
The measures in the Bill are welcome but, given the speed at which technology is moving, how easy or otherwise will it be to future-proof it in order to keep pace with technology once the Bill is enacted?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this extremely important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Nash for their continued efforts on the protection of children online.
This group should unite the whole Committee. We can be in no doubt about the need to safeguard children in an environment where technology is evolving at unprecedented speed and where the risk of harm, including the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material, is escalating. It is a sad truth that, historically, Governments have been unable to keep pace with evolving technology. As a consequence, this can mean legislation coming far too late.
Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require providers of online services, including generative AI systems, to conduct risk assessments on the potential use of their platforms to create child sexual abuse images. The Committee has heard compelling arguments about the need for meaningful responsibilities to be placed on platforms and developers, particularly where systems are capable of misuse at scale. We recognise the seriousness of the challenge that she has outlined, and I very much look forward to what the Government have to say in response.
On my noble friend Lord Nash’s amendment, we are particularly sympathetic to the concerns that underpin his proposal. His amendment would mandate the installation of tamper-proof software on relevant devices to prevent the creation, viewing and sharing of child sexual abuse material. My noble friend has made a powerful case that prevention at source must form part of the comprehensive strategy to protect children. While there are practical questions that will require careful examination, his amendment adds real value to the discussion. I am grateful for his determined focus on this issue, and I hope the Government also take this amendment very seriously.
Similarly, Amendments 479 and 480, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, speak to the responsibilities of AI search tools and AI chatbots. The risk of such technologies being co-opted for abusive purposes is not theoretical; these threats are emerging rapidly and require a response proportionate to the harm.
From these Benches, we are sympathetic to the objectives across this group of amendments and look forward to the Government’s detailed response and continuing cross-party work to ensure the strongest protections for children in an online world. As has been said several times throughout Committee, protecting children must remain our highest priority. I hope the Government take these amendments very seriously.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way she introduced this group of amendments and for her tireless work to protect children online. I say on behalf of all noble Lords that the support she has received today across the Committee shows that her work is vital, especially in the face of emerging technologies, such as generative AI, which present opportunities but, sadly, also have a darker side with new risks for criminal misuse.
She has received the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Cotes, Lady Boycott, Lady Bertin and Lady Doocey, my noble friends Lady Berger, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Hacking, the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hampton and Lord Davies of Gower, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others to whom I will refer later. That is quite an array of colleagues in this House. It is my job to respond to this on behalf of the Government, and I will try to be as helpful as I can to the noble Baroness.
The Government share her desire to protect the public, especially children, online, and are committed to protecting all users from illegal online content. We will continue to act to keep citizens safe. Amendment 266 seeks to create a new duty on online service providers—including those already regulated under the Online Safety Act—to assess and report to Ofcom or the National Crime Agency on the risk that their services could be used to create or facilitate the generation of AI child sexual abuse material. The amendment would also require online service providers to implement measures to mitigate and manage the risks identified.
I say to the noble Baroness that UK law is already clear: creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated by AI, is already illegal, regardless of whether they depict a real child or not. Child sexual abuse material offences are priority offences under the Online Safety Act. The Act requires in-scope services to take proactive steps to prevent such material from appearing on their services and to remove it swiftly if it does.
As she will know, the Government have gone even further to tackle these appalling crimes through the measures in the Bill. I very much welcome her support for Clause 63. We are introducing a world-leading offence criminalising the possession, adaptation and supply of, or offer to supply, an AI model that has been fine-tuned by offenders to create child sexual abuse material. As I mentioned earlier, we are also extending the existing paedophile manual offence to cover advice on how to abuse AI to create child sexual abuse material.
We have also introduced measures that reflect the critical role that AI developers play in ensuring their systems are not misused. To support the crucial work of the Government’s AI Security Institute, we have just debated and agreed a series of amendments in the previous group to provide authorised bodies with the powers to legally test commercial AI models for extreme pornography and other child sexual abuse material. That is essential to allow experts to safely test measures, and I am pleased that we received the Committee’s support earlier.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
If it is beyond the remit of the National Crime Agency and Ofcom to do anything about this, perhaps the Minister will tell us who is going to take responsibility and actually enforce what the noble Baroness is trying to persuade the Government to do in the amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
All chatbots are regulated under the Online Safety Act. If there is harmful or illegal content or advice in relation to children, it is up to Ofcom to take action on those matters. Many of these issues are for DSIT Ministers and Ofcom. I am a Home Office Minister. The noble Baroness has requested a meeting and I will put that to my DSIT ministerial colleagues. I hope they will be able to meet her to reflect upon these issues. Although I am answering for the Bill today, some of these issues are DSIT matters, and it is important that she has an opportunity to raise them with DSIT.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I was stimulated to rise by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. She was speaking to the reply that had been given by the Minister, and it made me think that what has to be looked at here is the law and its inadequacies in dealing with those who are not human—that is the nature of a robot. The law is constructed around the mental element of mens rea to convict people of a crime. Surely it should be possible for us, in the limited area of dealing with robots, to be able to say that that mental element need not be present in dealing with this kind of offending and that one should be able to construct something that leads back to those who are creatively responsible for bringing them into being.
It reminds me of the argument that is made in the United States about not bothering to restrict guns because it is not guns that kill people but the people using the guns who are responsible. In fact, those who manufacture them might be looked at for the responsibility that they bear for some of this. We should be looking much more creatively at the law. There should be an opportunity for lawyers to look at whether, in this instance with this development—which is so out of the ordinary experience of humankind—we should think about legally changing the rule on mens rea when it comes to robots.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are a number of issues before the Committee today and the Government will reflect on all the points that have been mentioned. However, the view at the moment is that these amendments would risk creating significant legal uncertainty by duplicating and potentially undermining aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that all chatbots are captured by the Online Safety Act; that is very good news indeed. Can he reassure us that Ofcom will confirm that in writing to the House? I appreciate that he is a Home Office Minister, but he speaks on behalf of all of government. I think it is fair, given the nature of the Bill, that he seeks an answer from Ofcom in this matter.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My assessment is that the vast majority of chatbots are captured—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Many AI chatbots that enable users to share content with each other or search live websites for information are within the scope of the Online Safety Act’s duties. Providers of those services—
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I want to repeat what I said in my speech. There are some chatbots, such as Replika, that do not have user-to-user functionality. They are created for just one user, and that user cannot pass it on to any other users. There is concern that the law does not cover that and that Ofcom does not regulate it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If I may, I will take away those comments. I am responsible for many things in this House, including the Bill, but some of those areas fall within other ministerial departments. I am listening to what noble Lords and noble Baronesses are saying today.
Currently, through Online Safety Act duties, providers of those services are required to undertake appropriate risk assessments and, under the Act’s illegal content duties, platforms must implement robust and timely measures to prevent illegal content appearing on their services. All in-scope providers are expected to have effective systems and processes in place to ensure that the risks of their platform being used for the types of offending mentioned today are appropriately reduced.
Ofcom currently has a role that is focused on civil enforcement of duties on providers to assess and mitigate the risks posed by illegal content. Where Ofcom may bring prosecutions in some circumstances, it will do so only in relation to regulatory matters where civil enforcement is insufficient. The proposed approach is not in line with the enforcement regime under the Act at the moment, which is the responsibility of Ofcom and DSIT.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My noble friend is making really important comments in this regard, but on the specific issue of Ofcom, perhaps fuelling much of the concern across the Committee are the comments we have heard from Ofcom. I refer to a briefing from the Molly Rose Foundation, which I am sure other noble Lords have received, which says that uncertainty has been “actively fuelled” by the regulator Ofcom, which has told the Molly Rose Foundation that it intends to maintain “tactical ambiguity” about how the Act applies. That is the very issue that unites us in our concern.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that and for her contribution to the debate and the experiences she has brought. The monitoring and evaluation of the online safety regime is a responsibility of DSIT and Ofcom, and they have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate core outcomes. This monitoring and evaluation is currently tracking the effect of the online safety regime and feeding into a post-implementation review of the 2023 Act. Where there is evidence of a need to go further to keep children safe online, including from AI-enabled harms, the Government will not hesitate to act.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will allow DSIT and Ofcom to look at those matters, I will make sure that DSIT Ministers are apprised of the discussion that we have had today. It is in this Bill, which is a Home Office Bill, but it is important that DSIT Ministers reflect on what has been said. I will ensure that we try to arrange that meeting for the noble Baroness in due course.
I want also to talk about Amendments 271A and 497ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which propose that smartphone and tablet manufacturers, importers and distributors are required to ensure that any device they have is preinstalled with technology that prevents the recording and viewing of child sexual abuse material or similar material accordingly. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s very valid intention concerning child safety and protection, and to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse material online. To that end, there is a shared agreement with the Government on the need to strengthen our already world-leading online safety regime wherever necessary.
I put to the noble Lord, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on his comments in support, that if nudity detection technology could be effectively deployed at scale, there could be a significant limiting impact on the production and sharing of child sexual abuse material. I accept that, but we must get this right. Application of detection technology that detects and blocks all nudity, adult and child, but which is primarily targeted at children, would be an effective intervention. I and colleagues across government want to gather evidence about the application of such technology and its effectiveness and impact. However, our assessment is that further work is needed to understand the accuracy of such tools and how they may be implemented.
We must also consider the risks that could arise from accepting this amendment, including legitimate questions about user privacy and data security. If it helps the noble Lord, Lord Nash, we will continue to assess the effect of detection tools on the performance of mobile device so that we can see how easy it is to circumvent them, how effective they are and a range of other matters accordingly. The Government’s focus is on protective measures within the Online Safety Act, but we are actively considering the potential benefits of the technology that the noble Lord has mentioned and others like it in parallel. There will be further future government interventions but they must be proportionate and driven by evidence. At the moment, we do not have sufficient evidence to ensure that we could accept the amendment from the noble Lord, but the direction of travel is one that we would support.
Lord Nash (Con)
Will the Minister meet me and representatives from software companies to explain why they say this technology works?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to arrange a meeting with an appropriate Minister. I would be very happy to sit in on it. Other Ministers may wish to take the lead on this, because there are technology issues as well. I have Home Office responsibilities across the board, but I have never refused a meeting with a Member of this House in my 16 months here and I am not going to start now, so the answer to that question is yes. The basic presumption at the moment is that we are not convinced that the technology is yet at the stage that the noble Lord believes it to be, but that is a matter for future operation. I again give him the assurance that, in the event that the technology proves to be successful, the Government will wish to examine it in some detail.
I have absolutely no doubt that we will revisit these matters but, for the moment, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his amendment and his fierce following of this issue, and for bringing it to our attention. I recognise that this is a Home Office Bill and that some of these things cross to DSIT, but we are also witnessing crime. The Home Office must understand that not everything can be pushed to DSIT.
Your Lordships have just met the tech Lords. These are incredibly informed people from all over the Chamber who share a view that we want a technological world that puts kids front and centre. We are united in that and, as the Minister has suggested, we will be back.
I have three very quick points. First, legal challenges, operational difficulties and the capacity of the NCA and Ofcom were the exact same reasons why Clause 63 was not in the Online Safety Bill or the Data (Use and Access) Bill. It is unacceptable for officials to always answer with those general things. Many noble Lords said, “It’s so difficult”, and, “This is new”, with the Online Safety Bill. It is not new: we raised these issues before. If we had acted three or four years ago, we would not be in this situation. I urge this Government to get on the front foot, because we know what is coming.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Northern Ireland(1) In the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)), after Article 42 insert—“Creation of CSA material
42A Child sexual abuse image-generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Article of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see Article 42B.(5) A person who commits an offence under this Article is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this Article—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means—(i) an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17));(ii) a prohibited image of a child, within the meaning of section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, that is not an excluded image within the meaning of section 63 of that Act;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator. 42B Article 42A: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Article 42A—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions.(2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in paragraph (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within paragraph (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this paragraph are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under Article 42A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if— (a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Article 76(1) applies in relation to an act which, if done in Northern Ireland, would constitute an offence under Article 42A as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.(8) Article 42A(6) applies for the purposes of this Article.(9) In this Article—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet;(e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.42C Liability for an offence under Article 42A committed by a body(1) This Article applies where an offence under Article 42A is committed by a body.(2) If the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of—(a) a relevant person in relation to the body, or(b) a person purporting to act in the capacity of a relevant person in relation to the body,the person (as well as the body) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.(3) In this Article—“body” means a body corporate, a partnership or an unincorporated association other than a partnership;“relevant person” , in relation to a body, means—(a) in the case of a body corporate other than one whose affairs are managed by its members, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body;(b) in the case of a limited liability partnership or other body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, a member who exercises functions of management with respect to it;(c) in the case of a limited partnership, a general partner (within the meaning given by section 3 of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907);(d) in the case of any other partnership, a partner;(e) in the case of an unincorporated association other than a partnership, a person who exercises functions of management with respect to it.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 92O insert— “92OA An offence under Article 42A of that Order (child sexual abuse image-generators) if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.
“Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland(1) In the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, after section 52C insert—“52D Child sexual abuse image generators(1) It is an offence for a person to make, adapt, possess, supply or offer to supply a CSA image-generator.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section of possessing a CSA image-generator to prove that the person—(a) was sent the CSA image-generator without any request having been made for it (by or on behalf of the person), and(b) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section of possessing, supplying or offering to supply a CSA image-generator to prove that the person did not know, and did not have cause to suspect, that the thing possessed, supplied or offered to be supplied was a CSA image-generator.(4) For further defences, see section 52E.(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).(6) In this section—(a) “CSA image-generator” means anything (including any program and any information in electronic form) which is made or adapted for use for creating, or facilitating the creation of, CSA images;(b) “CSA image” means an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, within the meaning of section 52;(c) a reference to making a CSA image-generator includes adapting anything that is not a CSA image-generator in such a way that it becomes a CSA image-generator.52E Section 52D: supplementary(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under section 52D—(a) to prove that the person made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,(b) to prove that the person was a member of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ (a “security body”) and made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the security body, or(c) to prove that the person—(i) was a member of OFCOM, was employed or engaged by OFCOM, or assisted OFCOM in the exercise of any of its online safety functions, and(ii) made, adapted, possessed, supplied or offered to supply the CSA image-generator for the purposes of OFCOM’s exercise of any of its online safety functions. (2) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(3) The references in subsection (2) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(4) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the internet service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (5), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(5) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or(c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(6) An internet service provider does not commit an offence under section 52D by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, a CSA image-generator, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(7) Section 52D(6) applies for the purposes of this section.(8) In this section—(a) “GCHQ” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;(b) “OFCOM” means the Office of Communications;(c) a reference to OFCOM’s “online safety functions” has the meaning given by section 235 of the Online Safety Act 2023;(d) “internet service provider” means a provider of—(i) a service that is made available by means of the internet, or(ii) a service that provides access to the internet; (e) “user” , in relation to an internet service provider, means a user of a service provided by the internet service provider.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 46 insert—“46A An offence under section 52D of that Act (child sexual abuse image-generators), if the offender is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.(3) In the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009—(a) in section 55 (offences committed outside the UK) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) Subsection (1) applies to an act which, if done in Scotland, would constitute an offence under section 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, as if references to a United Kingdom national included—(a) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) an unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.”;(b) in Schedule 4 (sexual offences for purposes of section 55 of that Act), after paragraph 12 insert—“12A An offence under section 52D of that Act (child sexual abuse image-generators).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made by clause 63 for England and Wales.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Possession of advice or guidance about child sexual abuse or CSA images: Scotland(1) In Part 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 after section 41 insert—“41A Possession of advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images(1) It is an offence to be in possession of any item that contains advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images.(2) “Abusing children sexually or creating CSA images” means doing anything that constitutes—(a) an offence under section 52 or 52D of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;(b) an offence under section 1, 2 or 7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995 against a person under the age of 18;(c) an offence under section 10 of that Act;(d) an offence under section 1, or any of sections 9 to 12, of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;(e) an offence under Part 1 or section 46 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 against a person under the age of 18;(f) an offence under Part 4 or section 42 of that Act;(g) an offence under section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 against a person under the age of 18 that is committed with a view to exploitation that consists of or includes behaviour within section 3(3), (4) or (5) of that Act (prostitution and sexual exploitation), or doing anything outside Scotland that would constitute such an offence if done in Scotland.(3) It is a defence for a person (D) charged with an offence under this section—(a) to prove that D had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the item;(b) to prove that—(i) D had not read, viewed or (as appropriate) listened to the item, and(ii) D did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that it contained advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images; or(c) to prove that—(i) the item was sent to D without any request made by D or on D’s behalf, and(ii) D did not keep it for an unreasonable time.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both.(5) In this section “item” includes anything in which information of any description is recorded.41B Section 41A: supplementary provision(1) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by—(a) providing access to a communication network, or(b) transmitting, in a communication network, information provided by a user, if the provider does not—(i) initiate the transmission,(ii) select the recipient of the transmission, or(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission.(2) The references in subsection (1) to providing access to, or transmitting information in, a communication network include storing the information transmitted so far as the storage—(a) is automatic, intermediate and transient,(b) is solely for the purpose of carrying out the transmission in the network, and(c) is for no longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.(3) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user for transmission in a communication network if—(a) the storage of the information—(i) is automatic, intermediate and temporary, and(ii) is solely for the purpose of making more efficient the onward transmission of the information to other users at their request, and(b) the service provider—(i) does not modify the information,(ii) complies with any conditions attached to having access to the information, and(iii) on obtaining actual knowledge of a matter within subsection (4), promptly removes the information or disables access to it.(4) The matters within this subsection are that—(a) the information at the initial source of the transmission has been removed from the network,(b) access to it has been disabled, or (c) a court or administrative authority has ordered the removal from the network of, or the disablement of access to, the information.(5) A service provider does not commit an offence under section 41A by storing information provided by a user who is not acting under the authority or control of the provider if—(a) the provider had no actual knowledge when the information was provided that it was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, and(b) on obtaining actual knowledge that the information was, or contained, advice or guidance about abusing children sexually or creating CSA images, the provider promptly removed the information or disabled access to it.(6) In this section—(a) “service provider” means a person providing an information society service;(b) “information society service” means a service normally provided—(i) for remuneration,(ii) at a distance,(iii) by electronic means, and(iv) at the individual request of a user of the services;(c) “user” , in relation to a service provider, means a user of a service provided by the service provider.(7) In subsection (6)(b)—(a) “at a distance” means that the service is provided without the parties being simultaneously present;(b) “by electronic means” means that the service is—(i) sent initially and received at its destination by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and(ii) entirely transmitted, conveyed and received by wire, by radio, by optical means or by other electromagnetic means;(c) “at the individual request of a user of the services” means that the service is provided through the transmission of data on individual request.”.(2) In Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual offences for purposes of Part 2 of that Act) after paragraph 59ZJ insert—“59ZJA An offence under section 41A of that Act (possession of paedophile manual) if the offender—(a) was 18 or over, and(b) is sentenced in respect of the offence to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for Scotland equivalent to that made for England and Wales and Northern Ireland by section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, as amended by clause 64.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image-generators: Scotland) inserted after clause 63.
“(vi) Article 42A (child sexual abuse image-generators);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new clause (Child sexual abuse image generators: Northern Ireland) inserted after clause 63.
Lord Meston
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to align the wording with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering as stated in section 330(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the scope of the duty to cover Wales in addition to England.
Lord Meston (CB)
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson cannot be here and has asked me to speak to her amendments in this group, 12 in number, to which I had already added my name in support. I pay tribute to her dedicated campaigning on what we will now debate. All her amendments concern and seek to reinforce the Government’s decision to legislate for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a wide range of contexts.
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson’s amendments are based on her earlier Private Member’s Bill and echo amendments by her to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was debated in June. I recall that in that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to a need for a clear and comprehensive system of mandatory reporting. Following the work of IICSA, which highlighted the widespread and endemic nature of child sexual abuse, the Government’s decision to put forward the duty set out in Chapter 2 is welcome and should be supported—but I would say, only as far as it goes.
The main point of difference is that whereas the Bill does not expressly provide for sanctions for non-compliance with the duty, many of us wish the duty to be underpinned by criminal sanctions, as IICSA recommended. Quite simply, a lesser sanction such as a possible referral to a professional regulator or to the Disclosure and Barring Service is not enough to enforce the new and important duty. We will get to this shortly with Amendment 280.
Before we move on, I would like to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was quite correct to emphasise the wide range of situations in which abuse can occur. It is not just child grooming gangs, well-known celebrity abuse cases or cases involving institutions such as churches or schools; the reality is that the majority of child sexual abuse occurs in domestic and family situations. It is therefore welcome that this Bill will potentially cover such a wide range of scenarios.
As someone who spent much of his working life dealing with child abuse cases, I suggest that these basic points should inform the debate on this part of the Bill and the amendments to it. First, safeguarding children should be seen as the responsibility of everyone. I quote my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson:
“A well-designed mandatory reporting law is a key component of an effective safeguarding system”.—[Official Report, 17/1/25; col. 1382.]
I would add that a positive duty to report, with sanctions, is the only certain way of ensuring that steps will be promptly taken to investigate and prevent abuse when it is revealed or suspected.
Secondly, and fundamentally, doing nothing when suspicions of abuse are aroused should not be seen as an option. A failure to report is a culpable failure to protect, and it is a failure to prevent harm to the child concerned and to other children at risk. Thirdly, a child who has the courage to disclose abuse needs to be reassured that his or her anxieties will be quickly and properly dealt with. Fourthly, a strong mandatory law will convey to potential perpetrators that abuse will not be tolerated. Finally, difficult cases concerning historic sexual abuse, whether one likes that term or not, arise in all jurisdictional areas. These require courts to deal with alleged abuse that may have been undetected and/or unreported for many years. A later group of amendments will consider these. In the context of this group, I suggest that a duty to report suspicions of abuse as soon as possible should reduce the number of such historic cases, with all their evidential and emotional complexities.
I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment 272 aims to align the wording of the Bill with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering in Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the duty to cover Wales as well as England. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, makes the point that for the past 23 years the country has protected money in ways in which it has not yet protected children. I have compared other formulations of positive duties elsewhere—for example, in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act—and submit that what the amendment here proposes is clearer and more incisive than the wording in the Bill.
Amendment 274 would ensure that any report goes to the local authority that has the duty to protect the child, investigating the child’s circumstances and putting in place therapeutic treatment as well as protective measures. The local authority already has a duty to work with the police and to pass reports on to them if there is evidence of an offence. Amendment 275 is consequential.
Amendment 276 would ensure that a report is made in cases of suspected offences occurring outside England and Wales. Amendment 277 seeks to align the duty with existing statutory guidance, which expects a report to be made as soon as practicable. If there is a risk to the life or safety of a relevant child, the guidance expects the report to be expedited rather than delayed in order to enable fast consideration of necessary intervention.
Amendment 278 would remove the scope for people not to report when they believe that someone else will do so. Experience shows—certainly this is my own experience—that that is just one of the many ways in which people with knowledge or suspicion of abuse will convince themselves that it is all right to do nothing, and to hope that the problem will go away.
Amendment 279 is intended to make it clear that the management and proprietors of a setting have the duty to report suspected abuse—for example, when suspicions are reported to management by other staff. It should not be a prerequisite to have had any direct contact with the child, nor should it be an excuse that they did not have any direct contact with the child. It is not the responsibility or function of management to consider the merits of the complaint; they have a straightforward responsibility to report concerns.
Amendment 280 would make failure to report a criminal offence, and this is perhaps the central amendment as far as we are concerned. The IICSA report made a balanced and carefully considered recommendation that it should be, providing for defences as indicated in the amendment. I suggest that criminalising a failure to report is justified in helping to reduce a significant risk of substantial harm to children. Paragraph 116 of the IICSA report states:
“Where an individual to whom mandatory reporting laws apply has witnessed or received a disclosure of child sexual abuse, it should be a criminal offence to fail to report that to the relevant local authority or police force. Such a failure would amount to a deliberate decision not to pass on information about child sexual abuse to those authorities empowered to protect children from harm and to prevent future abuse by investigating and prosecuting it when it occurs. For those who work with children or are in a position of trust to fail to facilitate that is inexcusable, and the sanction for such an omission should be commensurate”.
Amendment 281 seeks to define “operators of a setting” in cases of private and corporate ownership, and Amendment 284 would clarify and describe the wide range of settings in which relevant activities covered by Clause 72 might occur. These are not exclusive lists, and I hope the Committee will recognise the wide extent of the activities that need to be covered. For example, the amendment refers outside mainstream religious organisations, to
“other organisations holding non-religious worldviews”.
That echoes cases I have dealt with involving sects and cults that are closed and secretive, and insist on loyalty.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)
Before we move on, I clarify that the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 271F, was not moved so we have moved on to Amendment 272, which has been proposed as the lead amendment, and the group will continue as normal.
Lord Meston (CB)
Thank you for that. I was slightly confused, because the first amendment in the group was not moved.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, this follows on very well because I will speak to Amendment 283 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would insert after Clause 72 the offence of intentionally concealing child sex abuse.
There is a real problem—and it is an omission from the Bill—because leadership and supervisory roles are completely excluded from the reporting duty. The duty applies only to individuals in contact with children, but we in this House and elsewhere all know that it is not just the social workers, the medics or the police who have direct contact with the child who know that there is sexual abuse at play. It is often the leaders, the CEOs, the chairs of boards, the staff who are too scared to mention it in case of reputational damage, and those in command who suppress incidents of child sexual abuse. This confines mandated reporters to only those who have regular unsupervised contact, creating a critical gap in the Bill.
It would be absolutely unforgivable to let this Bill to protect children go through with such a glaring gap in their protection. Furthermore, there are no criminal penalties proposed for failure to report, and without sanction it lacks teeth. An additional problem is that in two of the industrial-scale institutions of child sexual abuse that we have witnessed—the health service and religious institutions—confidentiality is a kind of get-out clause. We need to overcome that.
The UK Government launched the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was explicitly tasked with uncovering the systemic failures that allowed such abuse to flourish untrammelled. The key recommendation was that the UK must introduce a mandatory reporting law for child sexual abuse. We welcome that this is now happening, but noble Lords have all encountered or understood that, very often, the protection of an institution, a company or an entity silences many who work in that institution but know what is going on, and that takes priority. That silence—actually silencing staff or members—is commonplace.
Look at the obvious ones, such as the Catholic Church. Across multiple countries, investigations found that Church leaders reassigned accused priests, maintained secret files and prioritised avoiding scandal over reporting allegations. Church of England independent reviews found that senior clergy discouraged reporting and protected accused individuals to avoid damaging the institution’s standing. In the health service, the BBC exposure of Jimmy Savile’s years of abuse demonstrated beyond belief how many people knew but said nothing. Internal discussions showed that investigations were discouraged or blocked due to concerns about reputation, and Savile’s celebrity and connections. In private schools and boarding schools, multiple inquiries documented quiet dismissals of staff and minimised complaints to preserve reputation, funding and donor relationships. It happens in sports clubs and organisations. Various youth sports organisations protected coaches, dismissed complaints and pressurised victims to stay quiet to maintain prestige. So often companies and institutions are too big to fail. They use threats or non-disclosure agreements and so on to cover up misdeeds in fear of reputational damage. This is intentional, and that is why this amendment would put a criminal offence of intentionally concealing knowledge of child sex abuse on to the statute book.
I have personal knowledge of such a case. In this instance, it was child abuse rather than child sexual abuse. Great Ormond Street, our national treasure, suppressed a report, the Sibert-Hodes report, that it had commissioned. It showed the hospital to have responsibility for the failing clinic where baby P, Peter Connelly, was taken multiple times with multiple injuries and subsequently died, and where it had employed an underqualified doctor who failed. In that clinic there were three other doctors, none of whom was present. Two were on gardening leave and the other had left.
Cover-ups are happening all the time. The Bill is an opportunity to stop this practice, where NDAs, threats and gardening leave are all used to prevent exposure. I believe this follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is trying to do with her amendment; it would expand it. I hope and trust that the Government understand the importance of these amendments and move urgently to fill the gaping hole in this legislation as proposed.
While I am on my feet, I will speak to Amendment 287 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about training for those subject to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I am indebted to the NSPCC for its help on this vital aspect of this new duty. In this amendment we are seeking to make mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse a reality, because without training—proper training, probably expensive training—it will not happen as intended in the Bill. It is vital that all those responsible for reporting under the new duty be trained effectively so that they feel supported and able, and are effectively trained to a high standard on their obligations.
The new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse has the potential to ensure that anyone working or volunteering with children knows that the sexual abuse of children cannot be tolerated or ignored. It will be illegal to tolerate or ignore it, and proper implementation must be embedded from the very start. Those who are responsible for reporting child sexual abuse must be properly trained to know what, how and where to report. The onus for ensuring this cannot rely solely on individual organisations. If this duty is to have a widespread impact, we need cross-sector, cross-government buy-in so that all reporters, no matter what organisation, community or area they come from, are empowered to protect children.
That is why this amendment is so vital: to ensure effective training for all mandated reporters within the mandatory reporting duty. Recognising, reporting and, crucially, responding to child sexual abuse is not easy or straightforward, because we know that disclosures from children do not usually happen in one conversation. They can happen in many forms, verbally or non-verbally, and emerge over a long period of time. They will often be the result of consistent and skilled engagement from a trusted adult that helps the child feel safe and ready to share their experiences.
Reporters may also struggle to decipher whether what they have seen is indeed child sexual abuse—such as if they came across child sexual abuse material online but were unsure of the age of the victim—particularly if they are not already trained to identify recognised signs and indicators of abuse. Their responsibility to the child cannot stop at disclosure or witnessing abuse. It is vital that any child who discloses their experience of abuse is met with an effective response.
We know that there is already a significant need for greater training and support for skilled professionals to improve their response to child sexual abuse, as detailed in the recent reports from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and the review into child exploitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. This is a gap in our child protection system that must be closed to better protect children, and this duty provides us with both the impetus and the opportunity to do so by taking a whole-system approach to embedding the duty. Therefore, those who are responsible for reporting on abuse and disclosures such as these must be trained not only in how to identify what child sexual abuse is, what a disclosure is and where to report it, but also in how to provide vital support to a child all the way through to after the report has been made and beyond.
This duty will apply not only to safeguarding professionals but to volunteers, sports coaches, youth club leaders and faith leaders, to name but a few. We cannot assume that all mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding of child protection required to carry out their responsibilities under this really serious duty. This is essential, not only on the practical level of understanding the duty itself but, arguably more importantly, in providing this sensitive support to children in a way that does not put them at risk. My amendment seeks to ensure that an understanding of child protection is intrinsic to the duty, guaranteeing that all those with responsibility as a mandated reporter receive, at a minimum, initial and ongoing training—essential elements of their new responsibilities.
In conclusion, from how to recognise signs and indicators to judging when reporting should be delayed for the safety of the child, reporters must be supported. Otherwise, we risk putting children in danger of being harmed by the reporting process, in addition to the hurt they have already received. By baking this guarantee into primary legislation, the Government can be confident that their duty will be implemented and regulated consistently across different sectors. It would also reassure reporters that they will not face sanctions because the organisation they work or volunteer for cannot afford to resource and train them appropriately. We owe it to all the victims and survivors who have bravely called for a mandatory reporting duty over so many years to ensure that it is done properly.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 283B. Schedule 8 relates to the duty to report child sex offences. Paragraph 17 of that schedule applies this duty to
“Activities of a person in connection with training, supervising or instructing a child for the purposes of a religion or belief, if the person has regular … contact with the child in the course of those activities”.
Some Catholic schools and faith schools obviously have religious objects, and Schedule 8 applies to them. But the problem with that is that all schools are also regulated by Section 21(5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That effectively means double regulation, which would put a burden on faith schools, with unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Catholic Education Service, which represents about 2,000 schools in England—that is not counting Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, of course—has worked closely with the Home Office and has helped to draft my amendment. The amendment would remove from the scope of paragraph 17 activity that is already regulated and governed by the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, therefore preventing unnecessary double regulation. The Catholic Education Service has worked very closely with this Government and the previous one on ensuring the highest standards of children’s safeguards in schools. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister would react positively to this amendment in his wind-up.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and of my noble friend Lady Featherstone. I hope they will forgive me if I say no more about all that, because, if I do not catch my train tonight, I will have to sleep on the street. I will speak to Amendments 280A in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and Amendments 282 and 285 in his name and mine.
Amendment 280A is straightforward in its intent. It seeks to fully implement recommendation 13 of IICSA’s final report. The current Clause 72 introduces a duty on adults engaged in relevant activity to notify police or local authorities when
“they are given reason to suspect that a child sex offence may have been committed”.
The Government propose non-criminal sanctions, such as referral to professional regulators or the DBS. We on these Benches maintain that this approach is insufficient. IICSA was clear: a failure to comply with the duty must be a criminal offence. Amendment 280A would insert proposed new subsections (10A) and (10B) into Clause 72, which would explicitly provide that:
“A person who fails to fulfil the duty under subsection (1) commits an offence”,
and that the person
“is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.
This criminal sanction is essential because relying solely on professional sanctions creates institutional loopholes. Professional sanctions apply to only a fraction of the mandated reporters and cannot effectively address failings in settings where professional regulation is absent, such as certain religious settings, where, as we have heard, many grievous failings have occurred. Nor do they cover volunteers in schools or other settings. Furthermore, criminalising non-compliance would align us with international best practice in countries such as France and Australia.
Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is similar to this one, except that it offers some mitigations that the court could consider. Whether this offers a loophole or a reasonable consideration for the courts is a reasonable discussion point.
Amendment 285 addresses the second vital component of IICSA’s recommendation 13. Incorporating the duty to report when a person recognises the indicators of child sexual abuse, the amendment would expand the trigger for the duty to report beyond direct disclosure by a child or perpetrator, or witnessing child sexual abuse, all of which is vanishingly rare, to include circumstances where a person
“witnesses a child displaying sexualised, sexually harmful or other behaviour, physical signs of abuse or consequences of sexual abuse”.
It has to be remembered that only one in three victims of CSA ever discloses what happened, and often it is many years later.
The fact is that, if the Bill passes as it is without amendment, it will undoubtedly fail in its stated objective. The Government themselves recognise this, as witnessed by the figures in the impact assessment. It says that the number of extra anticipated reports of CSA each year for England and Wales under the existing terms of the Bill is only 310, which is an average of 7.9 extra reports for each of the 43 police forces. The total number of cases estimated to be proceeded against in England is 26—with 15 cases in the Crown Court and nine in the magistrates’ court—and only 11 of those would see the award of custodial sentences. The total estimated increase in CSA referrals to local authority-designated officers is 2% per annum.
It would therefore be nonsense to suggest that widening the scope of the duty to report CSA to something like that which exists in countries that have high-standard mandatory reporting systems that have been functioning well for years, as this amendment proposes, would overwhelm our system. It would not. Neither would it result in some cases being hidden in the mass of reports, as some have suggested. On the other hand, widening the scope, as this and other amendments seek to do, would uncover a lot of evil and save many children from terrible lifelong harm, which has a cost to public services. Not doing so would perpetuate the culture of cover-up that led to the IICSA inquiry in the first place.
However, recognising that assessing such indicators can be subjective, Amendment 285 would maintain proportionality, as recommended by IICSA, by ensuring that failure to comply with the duty based solely on those indicators is not a criminal offence, but compliance should be done by any conscientious professional. This careful balance would ensure that staff and volunteers are encouraged to report any sign of potential harm without the fear of criminal prosecution based on subjective observation. This is crucial to fostering a reporting culture that prioritises the immediate safety and protection of the child, which is what we all want to see. It is vital to remember that the investigation of the report of, or reasonable suspicion of, child sexual abuse is not for the reporter to do; it is for the experts to investigate and the courts to decide—but they cannot do that unless they get the report in the first place.
Amendment 282 is designed to include in the reporting duty a comprehensive range of people who care for children, as defined in Sections 21, 22 and 22A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. To ensure that no relevant person is left out, these sections ensure the inclusion in the duty to report the management of settings where some kind of care is given to children, which is one of the gaping holes in the current wording of the Bill. With that, having just reaffirmed my support for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and those of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, I will finish.
Lord Polak (Con)
I rise to speak to my Amendment 286A, which proposes to fill gaps in Clause 79 so we can hold accountable all those who go out of their way to conceal the horrendous crime of child sexual abuse. This amendment is supported by multiple child protection organisations, including the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. I particularly thank Gina Rees from the NSPCC, who has advised me.
Obviously, it can never be acceptable for anyone to turn a blind eye to abuse. Yet across the seven year-long investigation, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse exposed countless instances where those whose organisations had a responsibility to protect children from harm not only failed to report child sexual abuse but took purposeful actions that actively sought to cover it up. These acts of intentionally concealing child sexual abuse are separate from, and go beyond, just failing to make a report, something which the Government’s mandatory reporting duty proposes to address. It means choosing and acting to prioritise something else, be that community, relationships or company reputation, over the safety of a child. I think we can agree across this House that that is unacceptable.
These acts of concealment are not a thing of the past. Take, for example, this real-life contact at the NSPCC helpline for those with concerns about a child. A special educational needs professional told the NSPCC:
“I’ve seen what happens when people report any concerns, even minor ones. Management bullies you, reduces your shifts, stops giving you what you need to support the kids. You’re expected to buy everything yourself for them instead of it being provided. If you thought you were on track for a permanent job, forget it”.
Bullying, threatening job stability and removing support for the children who are meant to be protected—these are actions, along with intimidation of witnesses and destroying vital evidence, that have happened for many years and still happen, with impunity, across our society. They not only undermine efforts to increase reports of child sexual abuse; they can deny victims their right to justice and hinder their access to vital support services in order to help them begin to recover from what they have suffered. As such, it is vital that our criminal justice system be equipped with new laws to catch these bad actors.
I appreciate that the Government’s current drafting of Clause 79 aims to do this by introducing a new criminal offence of preventing or deterring someone, under the mandatory reporting duty, from making a report. While that is an important part of thwarting the cover-up of child sexual abuse, this provision does not go far enough to cover the multitude of ways that reports of abuse can be concealed and could allow many of those who intentionally conceal this crime to slip through the net. This is because Clause 79 is triggered only when the person acting to conceal abuse does so by blocking or deterring someone, under the new duty, from making a report. This would not, for example, criminalise acts that could prevent abuse being discovered by a mandated reporter in the first place, such as intimidating victims or destroying vital evidence. Indeed, if the professional I referred to in my example earlier did not fall under the new duty to report, there is a strong chance that those who try to bully and intimidate someone in respect of doing the right thing would not be prosecutable under the current offence.
This feels to me like a glaring omission that could undermine the Government’s intentions with this clause. It also does not cover preventing those who are not mandated reporters from reporting, or acts to hinder this investigation of abuse after it has been reported. That is why I call on the Government and the Minister to look again at their current proposal and ensure that it is strengthened, so that those who intentionally act to cover up child sexual abuse, including those who threaten or deter those not under the reporting duty, are caught by this offence. I therefore urge the Government to accept Amendment 286A so that Clause 79 captures all individuals who intentionally cover up child sexual abuse.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 273, which is a very simple amendment that aims to put into action what IICSA recommended: that mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse should happen with no exceptions. The inquiry argued that, even if abuse is disclosed in the context of confession, the person—in this case, the priest—should be legally required to report it. It proposes that failing to report such abuse should itself be a criminal offence.
I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is in his place, because I know he has spent a long time on working parties looking at this issue. In earlier discussions in the House, in response to the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, said that he had received representations from churches on this issue and expressed the hope that this would be further debated as the Crime and Policing Bill went through Parliament. My amendment is simply here to enable that debate to happen.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Polak and his Amendment 286A. As he lucidly put it, this amendment proposes to close several glaring loopholes in the offences outlined in Clause 79; otherwise, I fear it will fail to meet the aims and expectations placed on it by this Committee.
Our criminal justice system should be equipped with new laws to hold accountable all those who cover up child sexual abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, put that case incredibly well and touchingly. It needs to be known that if someone acts purposefully to stop child sexual abuse being properly investigated and so denies the victims and survivors the protection and justice they are entitled to, they will face strong criminal penalties. That is why I support the Bill’s inclusion of Clause 79, which seeks to introduce new criminal offences for preventing or deterring someone, under the new mandatory reporting duty, from making a report. However, its drafting means that it would be limited in its ability to contribute meaningfully to the important mission of tackling child sexual abuse that we across the Committee strongly support.
Clause 79 is dependent upon the new mandatory duty to report. The clause not only requires the action taken to directly involve a reporter under the duty, it requires the person attempting to conceal the abuse to know that the person that they are deterring is a mandated reporter. This brings with it a whole host of legal complexities. What does it mean to know that someone is under the duty? Does it require them to also know that the child sex offence has taken place to trigger the said duty? How could it be convincingly proved by the courts that someone accused of putting the needs of their institution above protecting a child also understood what the duty is, who it applies to and how that factored into their actions? These are important questions that need to be reconciled.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Probably the most harrowing date in my life as a bishop was when I had to give evidence in person to IICSA as the Church of England’s lead bishop on religious communities— we knew that some of the horrific abuse that had taken place was in religious communities. Ever since then, I have worked really hard on these matters. I sought to add my name to Amendments 286A and 287, but I missed the deadline, sadly, so I am grateful for the chance to support them now.
I was going to say quite a bit about Amendment 286A, but the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said just about everything I wanted to say, so I will not detain the Committee any further on it. On Amendment 287 on training, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and others. It is important that the Bill will apply not only to already knowledgeable professionals but to volunteers, who will have a whole variety of levels of funding, of safeguarding experience and of experience in dealing with child sexual abuse. We cannot assume that mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding to fulfil these new legal obligations, so I think this is an appropriate probing amendment to see what support there can be to ensure that those who will have a duty are equipped to discharge that duty properly. Without that, I think we will fail to hit what we are trying to do.
I am sorry that it has taken us this long to get this far with the IICSA report. I think we have made a bit more progress implementing its recommendations in the Church of England than we have in this House, but I am glad that we got this opportunity today. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have proposed amendments.
I want to say a few words about Amendment 273, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, invited me to do so. On the seal of the confessional, if it is possible for a churchman to say this, I remain a bit agnostic. I am interested in what will actually produce good safeguarding. I have heard people say, including survivors sometimes, that the chance to go and talk to a priest, and know it would not go beyond that priest, was what gave them the courage—often with a priest going with them—to make a disclosure to the relevant authorities. I can see that if we change that, some disclosures would happen but some would not, so I am keen to hear a bit more about that.
The other part of the amendment talks about extending it to all those who volunteer. I am not quite sure how wide that needs to go. Certainly, I am happy for it to apply to Church leaders, lay or ordained, paid or unpaid, but it should not be the person who cleans the coffee cups in the church hall on a Sunday morning, or who puts out the “No parking” cones, or who photocopies the parish magazine or arranges the church flowers once a month. Let us be clear exactly what categories we are going to extend any duty to, and whether that is dealt with best in the Bill or in some sort of secondary advice, guidance, legislation or other instrument. I am keen to explore that more. I am very grateful for these matters being raised, and not before time.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 286A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, to which I also would have added my name if I had been slightly more efficient. The right reverend Prelate and I need to do better from now on. I acknowledge and thank the NSPCC and declare my interest as a teacher. To quote Keeping Children Safe in Education, which we have to read every year, child protection is everybody’s responsibility.
I was surprised to hear that this issue was not already completely covered. As we have heard now and in previous groups, it is essential that if someone acts purposefully to stop child sexual abuse being properly investigated, they should face strong criminal penalties. Actions like these can delay, and sometimes outright deny, victims their access to justice and the vital support needed to help them recover from such abuse.
The much-quoted Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse uncovered instances in which teachers were transferred to another school with no police referral, after a student was told: “You must not tell the police. We will handle it in-house”. Priests were moved from parish to parish, and there were examples of local authorities destroying files relating to allegations, which survivors perceived as part of a cover-up.
These are actions that can and do continue to happen across our society. While Clause 79 introduces a new criminal offence of preventing or deterring someone under the mandatory reporting duty from making a report, this provision does not go far enough to cover the multitude of ways that reports of abuse can be concealed. This is because Clause 79 is built on the mandatory reporting duty and requires the act of concealment directly to involve someone under that duty. This proposal is separate from applying criminal sanctions directly to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse in Clause 72, which I fear could create a defensive fear and blame-based child protection sector that criminalises those who lack the knowledge and training to report effectively. However, intentionally taking actions to cover up child sexual abuse cannot be tolerated and should be criminalised. I believe that this amendment strikes the balance.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken at this stage of the Bill. I must say that, in the presence of such expertise, I find myself entirely inadequate for the purpose. At Second Reading, I raised a question about the interaction of Clause 80 with the clauses that precede it. I profess no track record on matters of child protection, but I thoroughly subscribe to the principle of the duty to report contained in this section of the Bill. Because of its profound significance, it certainly has my full support.
However, I have come to the matter through a rather different route: the way in which crimes are recorded and, in particular, why they may not be recorded accurately or at all. My point is quite simple and revolves around the reliable translation of the definition in Clause 72(1)—namely, a reason to believe that
“a child sex offence may have been committed (at any time)”—
into some sort of recording and/or further action. We cannot know what those reasons to believe might be, so variable is the range of circumstances, as we heard earlier. I note that “reasonable belief” has no definable limit, and nor should it have. However, it may very likely be based on the reporter’s knowledge, training, experience, powers of observation and so on, rather than hard evidence. Here is the point: otherwise, were that not the case, Clause 72 would surely have been differently worded.
I certainly expect that all such professionals involved with safeguarding in mind would have acute sensitivity in this area and, in reporting their beliefs, would themselves be believed as an evidential source. My concern is that their belief alone may still not be enough to generate action without further and better evidence. I think in particular of a situation where the child who is the subject of their belief is uncommunicative, if the information is partly second-hand, if it is about a child not in their immediate charge, and the myriad ways in which this information of relevance can come about. Then, the only purpose of reporting would be to get the matters into some sort of system for follow-up monitoring and investigations which necessarily involve the devotion of resources to confirm the commission of an offence or ultimately dispose of it on the basis that nothing sinister has actually occurred.
Therefore, reporting gets us only so far. What then? What is the follow-up process to be? Clause 80 does not actually tell us but makes a leap to police crime recording, in accordance with “applicable policy and procedure”—presumably meaning the Home Office guidance and the practices within the particular force concerned, attuned to local circumstances, resources and priorities within its area. This, as far as I can see, is the only backstop follow-up from the reporting of reasonable belief under the Bill. As such, its commendable aims are yoked to a general crime reporting principle that applies some way further down the line.
I hope I do not suffer from some sort of hallucinatory process in all of this, but I seek to plug a gap in which reasonable belief in any given instance is not guaranteed to pass the evidential standard for the purposes of police or, for that matter, any other recording of suspected crime. This is because the balance of probabilities test underlying the crime reporting guidance embodies a clear tendency towards such an evidential base. Home Office guidance places the duty on the reporting officer as to what they think has happened in the commission of a crime, not necessarily what the person reporting thinks. Any different approach, especially one involving time and energy in instances of hazy information in the circumstances described, might be difficult to get across the line.
My concern, notwithstanding the current focus on child sexual abuse in the press and everywhere else, is that things might easily erode over the long run and default to standard practices consistent with available finances, manpower and, not least, political pressures to show effective reduction in crime. This was highlighted by the Public Administration Select Committee in its June 2014 report, Caught Red-handed. Its findings were also associated with the demotion of police crime recordings and their removal for national statistics purposes.
The gap I see in the legislative architecture before us matters because of the special attention needed to protect young people. If we are now moving on to a situation where previous failings to protect the vulnerable from things too awful to contemplate are really a thing of the past, with better outcomes going forward, then, as I pointed out at Second Reading, Clause 80 risks merely undoing the policy objectives of Clauses 72 to 79.
Rather than tinker around with the detail, it seemed more appropriate to remove Clause 80 altogether—hence my intention for us to debate whether Clause 80 stands part—and simply leave in place the duty to report and the penalty for obstructing this duty. That would lead, I hope, to the establishment by the relevant duty holders, via their multi agency safeguarding processes, of other follow-up protocols to manage and monitor concerns falling outside police crime recording parameters, but on a structured basis. Otherwise, I cannot conceive of any route to ensure follow-up measures and resources being devoted to mere reasonable belief that does not require an evidential test for crime recording. Therefore, this needs a framework.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as was clear from our debate, this is a very important group of amendments, which seek to clarify and improve a necessary measure in the Bill. When we discussed the fourth group today, we heard about the horrific crimes committed against some children in this country: the industrial-scale abuse of young, white, working-class girls over the past four decades, as well as abuse of other groups. This happened —and is still happening—because the people who commit these crimes are among the most depraved in our society. However, it has also happened because people familiar with the abuse, or even those who had mere suspicions, turned a blind eye or simply did not look at what was in front of them.
The victims were failed by everyone, from the police to the authorities, their teachers and community leaders. Too often, they were treated with a blind negligence that bordered on positively enabling the crimes that were occurring. We have heard many powerful speeches today; I cannot list them all, but I remind the Minister of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the powerful speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
I think we all now agree that safeguarding needs to be supported by sanctions. How else can we put a stop to bureaucratic failure to report? The difficult and important question is around striking the balance when doing that, to make certain that it is effective but that it does not have unintended, unhappy consequences. It is important also to make non-reporting a criminal offence, but, again, exactly how that is phrased will need considerable care. Many ideas have been canvassed today, and it would be dangerous for me to try to draft on the hoof at the Dispatch Box.
There was force in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as to why there should be an exception for what is learned in confession, and that was also important. I am not urging that there should be an exception, but it should be looked at. We have had arguments on both sides. What is the evidence? What are likely to be the benefits of opening that up? Personally, I think it should be opened up, but it should be looked at with care.
We heard earlier today from the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, all about the grooming gangs, so I will not go back to that, but they are an incredibly striking example of why we need a duty to report suspected child sex offences in general and why it is important that the clause is properly drafted.
One important oversight, which was spotted by noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Grey-Thompson, concerns the reference to Wales. As has been established, it is necessary to correct an oversight in the drafting. As things stand, local authorities and police forces in Wales will have to be informed of crimes, but only if they are considered crimes in England. That must be redrafted, and I hope the Minister will agree to that come Report stage.
Amendment 283A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—which was not moved, but it is sensible to make the point—would implement another recommendation of the Casey review, adding child criminal exploitation to the crimes for which there is a duty to report. It is important to look at all these points when drafting the obligations.
We on this side are largely supportive of the principles behind the several amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Leaving out subsections (5) and (6) raises an interesting point. It is obviously better to be safe than sorry. We will have to look very carefully at what removing those subsections would actually do.
We on this side worry about removing defences in cases where an individual genuinely fears for the safety of the victim or believes that someone else has definitely submitted a report. That must be looked at, too. Perhaps the Minister can guide us on how to ensure that genuine defences with merit will remain available without providing a route to or excuse for shirking responsibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, raised an interesting point about the bureaucratic burden on faith schools. Government obviously must look at that. It should not be a let-out; equally, we on this side would not support any extra unnecessary burden being imposed. However, it must be done properly.
My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 286A raises important considerations. It is worth noting that he is supported by Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and other organisations with great specialist expertise and knowledge—and not just anecdotal knowledge; they really know what is going on. He is looking to prevent the intentional concealment of child sex offences. That must be the absolute minimum. My noble friend Lord Bethell was supportive of that amendment, and he was right to caution us about going too far, so that it has the unintended consequence of not achieving what we all want to achieve. His words of caution should be heeded.
As to Amendment 274 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, we are rather hesitant in our support. Ensuring that a report goes straight to the local authority, which then has a duty to inform the police, might risk slowing down a response that is often needed quickly. Indeed, it might never reach the police. If a child is in imminent danger of being abused, it is not the local authority which should know first; it must be the police, who have to respond. There should be a simultaneous notification, because it can be, in effect, simultaneous.
With this amendment, it seems that someone who reported child abuse to the police would be criminalised for not going to the local authority. That cannot be right. Leaving it to the discretion of the individual which authority to report to, while requiring that there be a duty to do so, seems to us to be the right thing. People will know generally where to go but they must go to one or the other, and not automatically to the local authority first.
I think I have addressed the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Walmsley. These are all interesting points. The Government and those behind the Minister must look at this very carefully. It is really important to get the drafting right.
Amendments 283 and 286A seek to create and expand the specific crime of preventing or concealing reports of abuse. These are largely in line with the amendments addressed in the group in which we debated grooming gangs, so we support the intentions behind them.
As I have said, this is a group of amendments that have been tabled with the best of intentions. The issue in question should be entirely non-partisan; it is simply a question of how best to manage it and get it right, making certain that children and young people in this country are not allowed to suffer in the way in which they have for the last 30 years. I hope that the Minister will take away the points which are being made and, not least, add Wales to the list of jurisdictions. That is all I need to say at this stage tonight.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to colleagues who have spoken this evening. This has been a valuable debate on Chapter 2, Part 5. As noble Lords will know, introducing a statutory duty delivers the intention of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I am confident that the measures we have brought forward strike the balance that we need.
A number of amendments have been tabled, and I am sorry that Amendment 271F, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, was not moved. However, it is important to put on record that the reason the duty relates to the Welsh Government is that they have declined to legislate for a mandatory reporting duty in their own response to the independent inquiry. Therefore, we are respecting the devolution settlement by not including that legislation in the Bill. It is a devolved matter which requires the consent of the Senedd.
There are a number of other amendments which I will try to speak to. We know that child sexual abuse continues to go unreported. The reasons for this are complex, including fear, stigma and lack of awareness. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester covered some of those points in relation to the performance of the Church of England.
The unique nature of child sexual abuse as a type of harm requires the introduction of this new duty. I want to be clear that the introduction of the new duty establishes a floor, not a ceiling, and does not change or interfere with in any way the existing expectations set by government that all children at risk of harm should be referred to the appropriate authority for guidance and advice.
I want to first touch on Amendments 274 and 276, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which seek to require that reports under the duty are made to local authorities only, removing, with minor exceptions, the option to notify the police. Allowing reports to be made to either the local authority or the police, as recommended by the independent inquiry, ensures that reporters can act swiftly, so I cannot accept that amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and others, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to introduce a criminal offence for those who conceal or fail to report abuse. The Government do not consider this type of sanction, which risks creating fear and apprehension among those with reporting responsibilities, to be proportionate or effectively targeted. That is why we are empowering reporters by focusing the criminal sanctions in this Bill on anyone who seeks to interfere with them carrying out their duty, rather than on the reporters themselves. This issue has been carefully considered by a number of agencies and has the support of, among others, the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, Barnardo’s, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse and the Children’s Commissioner, so I cannot support the amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—via the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen seek to extend the duty to a number of additional contexts. The purpose of the duty is to report and place a clear requirement on those most likely to encounter information relating to sexual abuse. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the right reverend Prelate that this does include members of the clergy. Proposals to extend the ambit of a reporting duty to those who do not personally come into contact with children would introduce another layer of procedural complexity.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, it is now appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 272, reserving our right to return to it, and others not moved, after proper discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, when she has seen our debate—and read and marked my homework.